Background
Transitions of care from hospital to home are risky. One in five patients experience an adverse event during this transition, 62% of which could be prevented or minimised [
1]. In the United Kingdom (UK), readmission rates are used as an indicator of quality and they have risen by 22.8% since 2012/2013 [
2]. Although not all readmissions represent poor quality care, around 30% are considered to be potentially avoidable [
3‐
5] and this figure is thought to increase if readmissions due to deconditioning and post-hospital syndrome are included [
6,
7]. Shorter lengths of hospital stay potentially compound this as people are discharged home with on-going care needs, such as medication monitoring, wound care treatment, and limited mobility [
8,
9]. This transition is particularly risky for older adults who are more likely to have multiple comorbidities and complex health and/or social care needs [
10]. As such, improving the quality and safety of transitional care is a national and global priority [
11,
12].
A key focus of recent research has been to identify risk factors associated with hospital readmission. Systematic reviews focusing on older patient populations identify three broad groups of risk factors - those associated with: the patient (e.g. age, male gender, ethnicity, and living conditions); the disease (e.g. morbidity, functional disability, and prior admissions); and hospital processes (e.g. length of stay, referral method, and discharge destination) [
13‐
15].
In addition, studies have explored the quality and safety issues that arise during transitions of care, some of which are summarised by Kripalani et al [
16]. They include discontinuity between secondary (acute) and primary care providers; medication errors due to different pre- and post-hospitalisation medication regimes; economic pressures whereby patients are discharge home quicker and with more responsibility for their own care; and ineffective communication between doctors and patients [
16]. Delving into this, qualitative studies that specifically explore healthcare professionals’ perspectives identify fundamental system flaws that often transcend different types of transition (e.g. to home or nursing/care home), clinical populations, and organisational contexts [
17‐
22]. Transitions of care take place within fragmented [
17], under-resourced systems [
17,
20,
22] where teams work to different priorities and pressures [
18‐
20,
22]. There are few standardised systems, ways of working, or processes for delivering transitional care [
18,
21,
22], and inadequate communication creates difficulties when transferring care responsibilities from one team to another [
17,
19,
20,
22,
23]. Furthermore, focusing solely on medical conditions can increase risk through inadequate assessment and a lack of multidisciplinary team input [
17,
18,
21,
22]. These problems are often compounded by a lack of patient and family involvement [
17,
21,
23].
Numerous interventions have been developed to improve transitions of care. However, despite our understanding of the risk factors and safety issues, several systematic reviews indicate that the evidence remains equivocal as to what the most effective interventions or components may be [
24‐
26]. Interestingly, most studies focus on what
goes wrong at transitions in order to provide guidance and develop interventions. However, healthcare
goes right far more often than it goes wrong [
27]. Although useful, these deficit-based studies do not illuminate how staff deliver safe, high quality transitions of care or overcome the problems that they face. By learning about how safe transitions of care are managed within existing resources, we may be able to create effective intervention strategies that are both feasible and sustainable within healthcare settings.
There are only a few asset- or strength-based studies which explore how healthcare teams deliver
safe transitional care. In the United States (US), Brewster et al. [
28] identified organisational practices within high-performing hospitals that were thought to reduce readmission rates for heart failure. These included inter-disciplinary collaboration, relationships with post-acute care providers, and a culture in which staff engaged in trial and error improvement and where they perceived readmissions to be bad for patients. High and low performing hospitals did not vary in the specific, more concrete clinical practices that they used, such as follow up appointments or patient education. Also in the US, Bradley et al. [
29] quantitatively identified six strategies that were associated with lower readmission rates for heart failure: partnering with community teams; partnering with hospital teams; having nurses responsible for medicine reconciliation; arranging follow up appointments prior to discharge; having communication processes in place to send discharge summaries; and assigning staff to follow up test results that arrive post-discharge. Some combinations of these strategies are represented within transition interventions and the Ideal Transitions of Care framework [
30], yet it is not known which strategy/s actively contribute to reduced readmission rates [
25].
This study builds on the asset-based literature to explore how high-performing general practice and hospital teams successfully deliver safe care to older adults during transitions from hospital to home. The study adopts a positive deviance approach which seeks to identify and learn from those who achieve exceptional performance on outcomes of interest [
31‐
33]. A four staged framework has been proposed to apply positive deviance within healthcare organisations [
32]. Exceptional performers are identified using routine data (stage 1) [
34], and then qualitatively studied to explore how they succeed (stage 2) [
35‐
37]. The success strategies are tested in larger more representative samples (stage 3) before being disseminated to others (stage 4). The current study addresses stage 2 of this framework. Rather than focusing on specific perspectives (e.g. hospital management [
28]), specific aspects of transitional care (e.g. day of discharge [
38] or communication [
39]), and/or specific patient groups (e.g. heart failure [
28] or stroke [
39]), this study gathers multidisciplinary staff perspectives across a variety of healthcare contexts. We sought to understand what facilitates successful transitions of care within high performing teams, and the ways in which staff overcome the challenges faced in their everyday work.
Methods
Study design and ethics
In line with stage 2 of the positive deviance framework [
32], qualitative methods were used to explore how high-performing general practices and hospital specialties succeed. Focus groups, brief observations, and interviews were conducted to explore how multidisciplinary teams support safe transitions from hospital to home for older adults. Ethical approvals were granted by the University of Leeds, UK. Full details of the methods used are available in the published protocol [
40]. The study contributes to the Partners at Care Transitions (PACT) programme of research which aims to develop an intervention to improve the safety and experience of older people during transitions from hospital to home [
41].
Setting and site selection
In preparation for this study, high-performing general practices and hospital specialities that demonstrated exceptionally low or reducing readmission rates over time were identified (in line with stage 1 of the positive deviance approach). Routinely collected 30-day emergency readmission data for patients aged 75 years and over were extracted for all general practices (n = 151) clustered within five clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and all cardiology, respiratory and older people’s specialties (n = 85) clustered within 22 acute National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in the North of England. Routine data were extracted for the most recent timeframes available (2015–17 in primary care; 2013–16 in secondary care), and binomial funnel plots were used to compare 30-day readmission rates for sites within each CCG and type of hospital specialty. High-performing sites were identified as those that exceeded the two but ideally three sigma control limits. In addition, bar charts were plotted to identify hospital specialties that demonstrated the greatest improvement (i.e. reduction) in readmission rates over time.
Up to six high-performing general practices and hospital specialties were purposively sampled to represent a range of healthcare contexts (see [
40] for full details). General practices were selected using routine data regarding list size, deprivation, and the proportion of patients over 75 years / in nursing homes [
42]. Hospital specialities were selected following short telephone calls with the specialty clinical leads to explore how apparent high performance may have been affected by factors associated with the data, patient case-mix, structure or resources, processes of care, and/or individual carers [
43]. Where hospital specialties consisted of multiple wards, clinical leads also identified ward teams that were representative of the data (i.e. had higher proportions of over 75 yr olds and/or were perceived to perform well) and that specialty within the region (i.e. the type of treatment/care delivered).
In total, six general practices and four hospital specialties (two older people’s medicine, one respiratory, and one cardiology) participated in the study (Table
1). Data were gathered from staff who worked across 14 hospital wards including ‘base’ wards, an Elderly Admissions Unit, a ‘Delayed Transfer of Care’ ward for complex discharges, and a community hospital ward. Three hospital specialties (two respiratory and one cardiology) and two general practices did not engage with the study.
Table 1
Details of the high performing teams, data collection, and study participants
Secondary care | Hospital A: older people’s medicine | 5 x focus groups, 1 x interview, 4 x observed meetings (incorporated perspectives from 8 wards and a hospital discharge team) | 32 |
Hospital B: cardiology | 1 x focus group, 2 x interviews, 1 x observed meeting (incorporated perspectives from 1 ward) | 9 |
Hospital C: older people’s medicine | 3 x focus group, 3 x observed meetings (incorporated perspectives from 4 wards) | 20 |
Hospital D: respiratory | 1 x focus group, 1 x observed meeting (incorporated perspectives from 1 ward and an integrated discharge team) | 7 |
Primary care | General Practice A | 1 x focus group, 1 2-person interview | 10 |
General Practice B | 2 x focus groups | 21 |
General Practice C | 3 x focus groups | 20 |
General Practice D | 1 x focus group | 7 |
General Practice E | 1 x focus group | 7 |
General Practice F | 1 x focus group | 5 |
Community care | Community trust 1 | 1 2-person interview (worked into/with Hospital B) | 2 |
Community trust 2 | 1 focus group (worked into/with Hospital C) | 4 |
Community trust 3 | 1 x focus group, 2 × 1- or 2-person interviews (worked into/with GP D and F) | 6 |
Community trust 4 | 5 × 1- or 2-person interviews (worked into/with GP A, B, C and E) | 7 |
| Total: | 21 focus groups, 12 1- or 2-person interviews, 9 observed meetings | 157 |
In the UK, health services are broadly delivered via secondary care (acute hospitals), primary care (including general practices) and community care (including community nursing). Wider services are also available, for example, via social services and the voluntary sector. The pathways, services and infrastructure to support transitions of care vary by organisation/locality. In principle, hospital discharge is planned from the beginning of an admission. Patients are discharged from secondary care once they are deemed ‘medically fit’ (i.e. clinically optimised/stable) and ‘ready for discharge’ (i.e. necessary community support is in place). Responsibility is then handed over to primary care via discharge letters to the General Practitioner (GP). If required, care is also handed over to relevant community care or social services via referrals. Organisations can incur financial penalties for readmissions within 30-days [
44].
Participants and recruitment
Opportunity and maximum variation purposive sampling were used to recruit staff from the high-performing general practice and hospital teams (Table
1). As transitional care is not delivered by hospital and general practice teams alone, we also recruited staff from ten teams clustered within four community care trusts (organisations) that worked into and with the high-performing teams. In total, 157 participants were recruited including doctors, nurses, healthcare assistants, receptionists/administrators, allied health professionals, discharge coordinators, community matrons, district nurses, and specialist nurses. Although social care is also key to supporting transitions of care, their inclusion was beyond the scope of this clinically focused study.
Data collection
Multidisciplinary staff focus groups lasting up to 60 min were held in each high-performing team (Table
1). The group interaction afforded by focus groups enabled multidisciplinary team members to contribute their own experiences, clarify perspectives, and to discuss issues of importance to them [
45]. Where teams spanned multiple sites or included several wards, additional focus groups were conducted. Individual or two person interviews were conducted if staff were unable to attend focus groups. Suitable dates and locations for focus groups were organised via practice or ward managers. At the beginning of each focus group the researcher explained the purpose of the study. Semi-structured topic guides were used to explore shared perspectives about the concrete tools and strategies as well as the abstract cultural influences that support safe transitions of care (supplementary file
1). Focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and brief field notes were written following each focus group to record contextual information such as team dynamics.
Within secondary care, brief observations of staff meetings relating to patient discharge (e.g. board rounds and multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings) were also conducted to help researchers familiarise themselves with the ward setting and patient population, and to gather contextual information about how care transitions are planned. Observations in primary and community care were precluded by the rarity of meetings specifically relating to transitions.
Data were primarily collected by RB, a post-doctoral health services researcher, between September 2017 and May 2018. Where possible, three additional researchers with previous experience and a relevant clinical background (occupational therapist, GP registrar, and community nurse) co-facilitated focus groups or conducted individual interviews. Researchers met frequently during the data collection period to develop and discuss the topic guide and to ensure competency.
Data analysis
A pen-portrait approach [
46] was used as it facilitated large amounts of qualitative data (from focus groups, interviews, and field note) to be synthesised into rich, holistic accounts for each participating team (ward, general practice, or community team member). The four stages of a pen-portrait analysis were followed (define a focus, design a structure, populate the content, interpretation). The focus was defined as how teams successfully support transitions of care and overcome challenges. The structure included information about context, an overall summary, and detail about the key factors that were important to success. The researcher populated the content by making notes and mind-maps to distil key information into each pen-portrait (
n = 26). Initial pen-portraits (
n = 5) were compared against the later ones to ensure a consistent approach, and a second researcher (RS) assessed 10 pen-portraits against the original data to ensure they provided an accurate representation. For the final stage, interpretation, RB initially generated descriptive and analytic themes for teams within primary/community care and secondary care settings and then data were analysed across settings to generate high level conceptual themes about how high-performing teams successfully support safe transitions of care. The researcher recorded analysis progression, and met with wider team to discuss emergent findings.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.