Abstract
Outcome selection to evaluate interventions to support a successful transition from hospital to home of children with medical complexity (CMC) may be difficult due to the variety in available outcomes. To support researchers in outcome selection, this systematic review aimed to summarize and categorize outcomes currently reported in publications evaluating the effectiveness of hospital-to-home transitional care interventions for CMC. We searched the following databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, CINAHL, PsychInfo, and Web of Science for studies published between 1 January 2010 and 15 March 2023. Two reviewers independently screened the articles and extracted the data with a focus on the outcomes. Our research group extensively discussed the outcome list to identify those with similar definitions, wording or meaning. Consensus meetings were organized to discuss disagreements, and to summarize and categorize the data. We identified 50 studies that reported in total 172 outcomes. Consensus was reached on 25 unique outcomes that were assigned to six outcome domains: mortality and survival, physical health, life impact (the impact on functioning, quality of life, delivery of care and personal circumstances), resource use, adverse events, and others. Most frequently studied outcomes reflected life impact and resource use. Apart from the heterogeneity in outcomes, we also found heterogeneity in designs, data sources, and measurement tools used to evaluate the outcomes.
Conclusion: This systematic review provides a categorized overview of outcomes that may be used to evaluate interventions to improve hospital-to-home transition for CMC. The results can be used in the development of a core outcome set transitional care for CMC.
What is Known: • Studies on the effectiveness of interventions to support the hospital-to-home transition of CMC are numerous. •Heterogeneity in outcomes hamper comparisons across studies and therewith the ability to move research forward. | |
What is New: •This systematic review summarizes and categorizes outcomes reported in publications that evaluated interventions to improve the hospital-to-home transition for CMC. •In total 172 reported outcomes were summarized to 25 unique outcomes that were assigned to six outcome domains. |
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Hospital-to-home care for children with medical complexity (CMC) and their families is an expanding research area. This is motivated by the substantial increase in numbers of CMC, resulting from medical developments and consequently in the improved life expectancy of children with previously considered untreatable diseases [1, 2]. CMC are defined as children with concurrent chronic conditions, family-identified service needs, functional limitations and high healthcare use [3]. CMC consists of a diverse group of children (e.g. children with severe cerebral palsy or metabolic diseases), and are characterized by frequent emergency department visits, and lengthy and complicated (re)hospitalizations that create pressure on the healthcare system [4, 5]. However, the length of hospital stay of CMC is decreasing [6], and the complex care, such as tracheostomies, enteral feeding tubes, intravenous infusions, dialysis, and complex medication regimens is often provided by families at home [7]. Despite the benefits of being home, caring for CMC is challenging for families, and experiences of parents reveal emotional, social and financial hardships [8,9,10].
The transition from hospital to home of CMC should only take place when parents feel ready, and when the continuity of care is optimally organized. However, this is not always successful [11], and parents do not always feel supported and adequately prepared [12, 13]. Publications on the effectiveness of interventions to support a successful transition from hospital to home of CMC are numerous, with coordination of care, collaboration between families and the multidisciplinary team, and communication as key elements [14, 15]. However, the heterogeneity in outcomes hamper comparisons across trials and therewith the ability to move research forward in this field [16,17,18]. An overview of available outcomes may support researchers and program evaluators in outcome selection. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and categorize outcomes currently reported in publications evaluating the effectiveness of hospital-to-home transitional care interventions for CMC.
Methods
This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews [19], and the recommendations for a Core Outcome Set development and reporting [20, 21].
We considered this literature review as the first step in developing a Core Outcome Set (COS), an agreed method to overcome problems of variability in outcome selection, measurement and synthesis [22]. The full protocol, describing this systematic review and the next steps (a Delphi study and focus groups), has been registered in the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database [22].
Study eligibility
Search strategy
We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane library, CINAHL, PsychInfo and Web of Science with help of a clinical librarian. The search was limited to articles published in English between 1 January 2010 and 15 March 2023. The search was executed on 15 November 2020, and updated on 18 March 2023. This period was considered adequate for the aim of our study as the reported outcomes may change over time depending on e.g. societal perspective on health and healthcare, and population characteristics. The key terms referring to the patient group included “children with medical complexity” or related terms, such as “children with complex chronic conditions”. The key terms referring to the intervention included “transitional care”, “follow-up” and “discharge”. Comparison interventions and outcomes were not specified in the search. The detailed search strategies are presented in Appendix A. Duplicates were removed electronically; the selection was carried out using the web application Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org).
Inclusion criteria
We included comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention to improve the hospital-to-home transition for CMC, e.g. randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, cohort studies, and before-after designs. Studies had to report on quantitative outcomes to be eligible for inclusion. We focused on studies with participants described as children with medical complexity. Studies based in all inpatient settings that provided transitional care were included, as well as all types of interventions or types of care that aimed to improve the hospital-to-home transitional care. We only included studies if full text publications were available.
Exclusion criteria
Publications were excluded if it concerned qualitative research, reviews, guidelines, case studies, editorials and abstracts.
Study selection
Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies based on the inclusion criteria. If they could not assess a publication for relevance based on title and abstract, full text was obtained. Subsequently, the two reviewers independently studied the full texts for final inclusion. We used snowball sampling by hand-searched the reference lists of all included articles and relevant (systematic) reviews to identify additional publications. After each step, the reviewers discussed their findings to reach consensus. When disagreement needed to be solved, a third reviewer was consulted.
Data extraction
Data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. A self-designed extraction form was used. This form was pilot tested by two reviewers by comparing the data extraction results of the first 10 included studies. The following data were systematically collected: first author, publication year, country or origin, design of the study, setting, sample size, medical complexity of the child, age of the child, hospital-to-home intervention studied, outcomes, outcome measures, sources of the outcomes, and the time-frame of the outcome measures. Any outcomes that were described in the studies were included, and no distinction was made between primary and secondary outcomes.
Analysis
A narrative synthesis was undertaken to summarize the outcomes. We anticipated that outcomes would vary in terminology and in measurement tools used. We merged the outcomes with similar definitions and/or concepts. Therefore, two researchers independently reviewed the list of outcomes as reported in the studies to identify similarities. Their findings were discussed in consensus meetings with the multidisciplinary hospital-to-home research group that included pediatricians, a pediatric intensivist, a pediatric rehabilitation specialist, (pediatric) nurses, and a clinical epidemiologist. Two researchers checked the merged outcomes by re-reading the publications.
After comparing several frameworks to classify the outcomes, we decided to use the taxonomy of Dodd et al. [23]. Based on this taxonomy, we categorized the outcomes into the following domains: (a) mortality and survival, (b) physical health, (c) life impact, (d) resource use, and (e) adverse events [23]. We created a domain (f) others to report on those outcomes that would not fit in well, but we considered important to include in this review. The domain mortality and survival includes all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality. Physical health refers to measures of physiological function, signs and symptoms related to a body system, or general physiological outcomes, such as weight, fatigue and pain. Life impact refers to the impact of a disease or condition on functioning (e.g. social, emotional, and cognitive), quality of life, delivery of care (e.g. compliance), and personal circumstances (e.g. finances, work). Resource use includes outcomes related to healthcare utilization and costs. The domain adverse events includes any unintended consequence of the intervention. Two reviewers categorized the outcomes into one of the six domains. A third reviewer resolved uncertainties.
Results
The database searches resulted in 11.011 records and after elimination of duplicates 8.190 records remained. A total of 8.015 papers were excluded based on title and abstract. After reading the remaining 175 publications full texts, 48 studies were deemed eligible according the pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two additional publications were identified from hand searching the reference lists, resulting in a total of 50 studies included in this systematic review [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73]. Figure 1 shows the selection process.
Study characteristics
Of the 50 studies, 43 (86%) were performed in pediatric hospitals in the United States of America [24,25,26,27,28, 32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59, 61, 62, 64,65,66,67,68,69,70, 72], three studies in Canada (6%) [30, 31, 60], two in Italy (4%) [63, 73], one in Australia (2%) [29], and one in Turkey (2%) [71]. Fourty one studies (82%) were published between 2016 and 2021 [24,25,26,27,28,29, 32,33,34,35,36,37,38, 40, 42,43,44,45,46,47, 49,50,51,52,53,54,55, 59, 61,62,63, 65,66,67,68,69,70, 72, 7357—]. In total, 29 studies (58%) characterized their study population as CMC, labeled with criteria, but no specific diagnosis [24, 25, 27,28,29,30,31,32,33, 35, 36, 38,39,40,41,42, 44, 46, 47, 49,50,51,52, 56, 59, 61, 63, 68, 73]. Other study populations were based on specific diagnoses: (preterm) neonates (six studies, 12%) [43, 48, 54, 66, 67, 70], neurological conditions or epilepsy (three studies, 6%) [34, 58, 60], and childhood cancer (one study, 2%) [71]. Some publications defined their population based on technology assistance: mechanical ventilation (two studies, 4%) [37, 53], tracheostomy (five studies, 10%) [45, 55, 57, 65, 72], or both (four studies, 8%) [26, 62, 64, 69].
The following designs were described in the publications: cohort studies (22 studies, 44%) [25, 27,28,29, 33, 35,36,37, 40, 41, 43, 53,54,55,56, 58, 59, 63, 66, 67, 70, 73], quality improvement projects with a pre-post design (13 studies, 26%) [24, 26, 38, 42, 45, 50, 51, 61, 62, 64, 65, 68, 72], randomized controlled trials (six studies, 12%) [32, 34, 46, 47, 49, 60], quasi-experimental studies (five studies, 10%) [39, 44, 48, 52, 71], mixed method studies (two studies, 4%) [30, 31], or other (two studies, 4%) [57, 69].
The hospital-to-home interventions studied were mainly multi-faceted including a wide variety of activities, e.g. care coordination, parental education programs, home visits, and telehealth applications. The study characteristics are summarized in Table 1.
Outcomes
We identified 172 outcomes among the 50 included studies. Our research group extensively reviewed and discussed the outcome list to identify those with similar definitions, wording or meaning. Finally, consensus was reached on a list of 25 unique outcomes that were assigned to the six outcome domains. We present the outcomes per study (Table 1) and per domain (Table 2).
Mortality and survival
Mortality was considered as an outcome in five studies (10%) [26, 32, 46,47,48]. Mortality was reported differently: 1-year mortality [26], number of children deceased during the study period [32, 46, 47], and 30-days mortality [48].
Physical Health
In seven studies (14%) the outcomes referred to disease management [46, 47, 49, 51, 65, 68, 71]. Studies reported on different outcomes: serious illness [46, 47], health deterioration [49], weight on standard growth curve [51], physical development assessments [65], unresolved health issues [68], and physiological care needs, e.g. bowel control and pain [71].
Life impact
This domain was evaluated in 24 studies (48%) [28,29,30,31, 33, 34, 36, 38, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47,48,49, 54, 57, 59, 60, 64, 47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70, 72] and we differentiated 13 outcomes. Five studies reported on outcomes reflecting the impact on the life of the child: quality of life (three studies, 6%) [31, 33, 49], behavioral problems (one study, 2%) [34], and school absences (one study, 2%) [29]. Ten outcomes concerned the impact on the lives of the parents: self-efficacy (nine studies, 18%) [33, 34, 41, 44, 45, 57, 60, 64, 72], the competency of parents to provide care for their child (eight studies, 16%) [36, 41, 45, 57, 60, 69, 70, 72], satisfaction with hospital-to-home transitional care (eight studies, 16%) [33, 38, 42, 44, 45, 48, 68, 70], compliance in terms of missed appointments were explored in four studies (8%) [28, 48, 54, 59], quality of life (three studies, 6%) [30, 31, 33], satisfaction with healthcare in general (three studies, 6%) [30, 47, 49], out-of-pocket expenses (three studies, 6%) [29, 30, 44], satisfaction with family centered care (two studies, 4%) [30, 31], anxiety (one study, 2%) [34], and depression (one study, 2%) [34].
Resource use
The majority of the studies (36 studies, 72%) had chosen outcomes in the domain resource use [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32, 35, 37,38,39,40, 42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 65,66,67, 71, 73]. Hospital (re)admission was the most frequently reported outcome (30 studies, 60%) [25,26,27,28,29, 32, 35, 37,38,39,40, 42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 66, 71, 73], followed by length of stay in the hospital (19 studies, 38%) [25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 35, 38,39,40, 44, 46, 47, 49, 51, 55, 56, 58, 61, 65], the number of visits to an Emergency Department (19 studies, 38%) [26, 27, 29,30,31, 37, 38, 40, 43,44,45,46,47,48,49, 53, 58, 67, 73], and costs (17 studies, 34%) [25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 35, 37, 38, 40, 43, 46, 47, 50, 51, 53, 55, 56]. Other reported outcomes in this domain were: the number of contacts to an outpatient department/clinic/subspecialist (nine studies, 18%) [28, 31, 46, 47, 58, 71, 73], the number of primary care consultations or visits to a community based clinic (two studies, 4%) [30, 31], services carried out by a pharmacist (one study, 2%) [50], and the number of activities performed by primary care professionals (one study, 2%) [73].
Adverse events
Adverse events in terms of numbers and features of medication and equipment errors at home were assessed in four studies (8%) [45, 54, 63, 68].
Other
Staff perception about the transitional care, in term of feasibility, usability and satisfaction was evaluated in three studies (6%) [24, 30, 41].
Sources of outcome data and outcome measurements
Different data sources and tools were used to evaluate the outcomes. All studies reporting on mortality and healthcare use collected their data from institutional databases, insurance databases, and electronic medical records. Physical health data came from electronic medical records, a telehealth application and a measurement tool. Outcomes on physical health, life impact, adverse events, and staff perception were measured by a big variety of questionnaires or assessment tools. For example, in the studies reporting on life impact, we found 35 different measurement tools, of which several were modified or self-structured. See Table 2.
Period of outcome measurements
The total duration of the study periods varied from three months [24, 45] to 10 years or more [25, 35, 55, 56]. We found great variation in the frequencies and intervals of the outcome measurements. Some studies reported a single observation, while other studies collected outcomes biweekly, monthly, quarterly, six-monthly, or yearly. Some studies included the measurements over time in the analyses [30, 34, 36, 43, 51, 59, 67, 71] and/or gave visual insight in the trends, e.g. with run charts [26, 29, 31, 49, 50, 54, 59, 61]. In general, studies were unclear in reporting their timelines.
Discussion
In this systematic review, we identified outcomes currently reported in publications evaluating the effectiveness of hospital-to-home transitional care interventions for CMC. Despite a substantial degree of heterogeneity in the definitions and descriptions of the outcomes, we agreed on 25 unique outcomes. These outcomes were assigned to six main outcome domains: mortality and survival, physical health, life impact, resource use, adverse events, and others. This overview of outcomes shows the outcomes researchers have prioritized to evaluate hospital-to-home interventions.
We are aware of important previous work by Looman et al. [17] and Barnert et al. [74] that also reports on outcome measures in publications concerning CMC and their families. Looman et al. aim to identify patterns and gaps in classification systems, data, and outcomes in studies of CMC [17]. Barnert et al. aim to contribute to the development of summary measures to describe the health of CMC [74]. Our systematic review is of additional value due to its focus on outcomes used in evaluations of hospital-to-home interventions. In addition, we specifically aim to use this systematic review in the development of a COS in order to standardize and prioritize meaningful outcomes in studies that aim to improve hospital-to-home transitional care interventions for CMC and their families.
Most studies in our review had chosen resource use outcomes, such as visits to an ED, number of hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, and costs, which is congruent with the two aforementioned reviews [17, 74]. The focus on resource use outcomes might reflect the perceived importance by different stakeholders, e.g. policy makers, insurance companies, and healthcare professionals. The importance of resource use outcomes is obvious, as CMC account substantially in healthcare resource use, such as 20% of ED visits at children’s hospitals, and up to 33% of all children’s healthcare costs [4, 75, 76]. Furthermore, resource use outcomes might also be chosen as indicators of physical health, and the extent to which the medical complexity impacts on the child, parents and families.
Many studies in our systematic review had chosen outcomes reflecting the life impact. Within the domain life impact a variety of different outcomes were collected, of which most reflected the impact on the life of parents. The impact on the life of the children was less represented with six studies focusing on the child. We did not find studies reporting on the specific impact on siblings, other members of the family (e.g. grandparents), or family’s interactions. An explanation could be that those themes are more often explored in qualitative studies. To create a comprehensive view of hospital-to-home transitional care another review of qualitative studies should be of additional value. Thomson et al. pointed out that having a CMC may have a major negative impact on the financial situation of a family [8]. This is supported by Barnert et al. who underlined that a comprehensive and continuous health insurance is considered an important contribution to the health of CMC [77]. Apart from three study that reported out-of-pockets expenses [29, 31, 44], no other study in our review reported the financial impact as an outcome. This is in line with a recent review showing that out of 27 studies only three reported on costs of CMC from the family perspective [78].
Outcomes in the domains mortality and survival, and physical health were less represented in our results. It can be reasoned that the outcomes on physical health are associated with resource use, and therefore less chosen. For example, it is likely that disease exacerbations (physical health) result in more ED visits and hospitalizations (resource use outcomes), making resource use outcomes surrogate outcomes for physical health. We identified two studies that explicitly described the seriousness of the disease in terms of death and resource use [46, 47].
Adverse events outcomes were reported in only a few studies. This might be explained by the challenges in identification and reporting. The identification of errors at home depends mainly on self-reporting by parents. Lack of awareness, parents’ perceived value and decision-making of reporting, and non-transparent reporting processes might hamper data in this outcome domain [79]. However, minimizing medical errors was defined as an important outcome for a healthy life for CMC [77].
Population
Although abundant literature exists on CMC, a uniform definition of CMC is lacking [80], and studies might not have been indexed clearly in the literature databases. Therefore, we also included studies that described the participants as children with complex chronic conditions. As a result, the studies included in this review represent a great variety of medical conditions and diseases, and over-inclusion in our study cannot be ruled out. As the aim of this SR was to identify all outcomes relevant for the hospital-to-home transition, we consider the broad inclusion as a strength of this study. On the other hand, also under-inclusion might have occurred as we excluded studies that did not provide a definition or clear description of the medical complexity of the participants. It is remarkable that most included studies are conducted in the USA. As outcome priorities may be influenced by national policy and the organization of care, this may have resulted in missing outcomes considered relevant in other countries.
Period of outcome measurements
Obviously, the timing of outcome measurement in the course of disease is crucial and dependent on the aim of a study. Publication guidelines stress out to publish the rationale for the frequency, time between measurements and duration of the follow-up in studies. Especially in complex care, outcomes should not be considered final endpoints, but rather ongoing indicators of the well-being of patients and their families, and healthcare needs [81, 82]. It can be expected that the outcomes change over time influenced by the dynamic and unpredictable course of the condition of CMC, and the context. Longitudinal measurement should be encouraged, as it provides the opportunity to use results in feedback loops evaluating the impact and connecting the results with treatment, care, and support activities [82, 83].
Limitations
We acknowledge some limitations of this systematic review. Firstly, we did not execute a quality assessment of the studies included in this systematic review. Because the aim of this systematic review was to summarize and categorize the reported outcomes regardless the quality of the study, we believe a quality assessment was not appropriate to address the research question of interest. However, future review of the existing literature is needed to quantify the effects of the interventions, including an assessment of the quality of the evidence, as this will inform the trustworthiness of the reported effectivity of the hospital-to-home interventions. Secondly, the final set of unique outcomes was established by consensus among the researchers. Despite the expertise of the researchers and the conscientious and careful process, subjective interpretations might have been of influence. In future research, validation by an independent group of experts might increase the trustworthiness of the results.
Conclusion
This systematic review found a big variety of outcomes used in studies evaluating interventions to improve hospital-to-home transition for CMC. However, it was possible to summarize them in a short-list with 25 unique outcomes that reflect mortality, physical health, impact on the life of the child and the parents, resource use, adverse events and staff perceptions. This short-list may support researchers and program evaluators in outcome selection, and can be used in the development of a core outcome set transitional care for CMC in future.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Abbreviations
- CMC:
-
Children with Medical Complexity
- COS:
-
Core Outcome Set
- COMET:
-
Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials
- ED:
-
Emergency Department
- PICU:
-
Pediatric Intensive Care Unit
- PRISMA:
-
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
References
Yamada H, Ohno K, Shiota M, Togawa M, Utsunomiya Y, Akaboshi S, Tsuchie H, Okada T, Oguri M, Higami S, Noma H, Maegaki Y (2020) Prevalence and clinical characteristics of children with medical complexity in Tottori Prefecture, Japan: A population-based longitudinal study. Brain Dev 42(10):747–755
Fraser LK, Gibson-Smith D, Jarvis S, Norman P, Parslow RC (2021) Estimating the current and future prevalence of life-limiting conditions in children in England. Palliat Med 35(9):1641–1651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216320975308
Cohen E, Kuo DZ, Agrawal R, Berry JG, Bhagat SK, Simon TD, Srivastava R (2011) Children with medical complexity: an emerging population for clinical and research initiatives. Pediatrics 127(3):529–538. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-0910
Kuo DZ, Melguizo-Castro M, Goudie A, Nick TG, Robbins JM, Casey PH (2015) Variation in child health care utilization by medical complexity. Matern Child Health J 19(1):40–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-014-1493-0
Leyenaar JK, Schaefer AP, Freyleue SD, Austin AM, Simon TD, Van Cleave J, Moen EL, O'Malley AJ, Goodman DC (2022) Prevalence of children with medical complexity and associations with health care utilization and in-hospital mortality. JAMA pediatrics 176(6):e220687. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.0687
Brown CM, Williams DJ, Hall M, Freundlich KL, Johnson DP, Lind C, Rehm K, Frost PA, Doupnik SK, Ibrahim D, Patrick S, Howard LM, Gay JC (2021) Trends in length of stay and readmissions in children’s hospitals. Hosp Pediatr. 11(6):554–562. https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2020-004044
Elias ER, Murphy NA, Council on Children with Disabilities (2012) Home care of children and youth with complex health care needs and technology dependencies. Pediatrics 129(5):996–1005. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-0606
Thomson J, Shah SS, Simmons JM, Sauers-Ford HS, Brunswick S, Hall D, Kahn RS, Beck AF (2016) Financial and Social Hardships in Families of Children with Medical Complexity. J Pediatr 172:187–193.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.01.049
Kish AM, Newcombe PA, Haslam DM (2018) Working and caring for a child with chronic illness: A review of current literature. Child Care Health Dev 44(3):343–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12546
Bayer ND, Wang H, Yu JA, Kuo DZ, Halterman JS, Li Y (2021) A national mental health profile of parents of children with medical complexity. Pediatrics 148(2):e2020023358. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-023358
Nageswaran S, Sebesta MR, Golden SL (2020) Transitioning children with medical complexity from hospital to home health care: implications for hospital-based clinicians. Hosp Pediatr 10(8):657–662. https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2020-0068
Ronan S, Brown M, Marsh L (2020) Parents’ experiences of transition from hospital to home of a child with complex health needs: A systematic literature review. J Clin Nurs 29(17–18):3222–3235. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15396
Seppänen AV, Sauvegrain P, Draper ES, Toome L, El Rafei R, Petrou S, Barros H, Zimmermann LJ, Cuttini M, Zeitlin J, SHIPS Research Group (2021) Parents’ ratings of post-discharge healthcare for their children born very preterm and their suggestions for improvement: a European cohort study. Pediatric research 89(4):1004–1012. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-020-01120-y
Conkol KJ, Martinez-Strengel A, Coller RJ, Bergman DA, Whelan EM (2020) Pediatric hospitalists’ lessons learned from an innovation award to improve care for children with medical complexity. Hosp Pediatr 10(8):694–701. https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2020-0069
Williams LJ, Waller K, Chenoweth RP, Ersig AL (2021) Stakeholder perspectives: Communication, care coordination, and transitions in care for children with medical complexity. J Spec Pediatr Nurs 26(1):e12314. https://doi.org/10.1111/jspn.12314
Breneol S, Belliveau J, Cassidy C, Curran JA (2017) Strategies to support transitions from hospital to home for children with medical complexity: a scoping review. Int J Nurs Stud 72:91–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.04.011
Looman WS, Park YS, Gallagher TT, Weinfurter EV (2020) Outcomes research on children with medical complexity: a scoping review of gaps and opportunities. Child Care Health Dev 46(1):121–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12725
Mantler T, Jackson KT, Baer J, White J, Ache B, Shillington K, Ncube N (2020) Changes in care- a systematic scoping review of transitions for children with medical complexities. Curr Pediatr Rev 16(3):165–175. https://doi.org/10.2174/1573396316666191218102734
Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE et al (2021) PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 372:n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E, Moher D, Schmitt J, Tugwell P, Tunis S, Williamson PR (2016) Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting: The COS-STAR Statement. PLoS medicine 13(10):e1002148. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002148
Kirkham JJ, Davis K, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Tunis S, Williamson PR (2017) Core outcome set-standards for development: the cos-stad recommendations. PLoS Med 14(11): e1002447. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002447
Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness trials. Available: www.comet-initiave.org, Assessed February 2023.
Dodd S, Clarke M, Becker L, Mavergames C, Fish R, Williamson PR (2018) A taxonomy has been developed for outcomes in medical research to help improve knowledge discovery. J Clin Epidemiol 96:84–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.020
Antolick MM, Looman WS, Cady RG, Kubiatowicz K (2020) Identifying and communicating postdischarge goals for hospitalized children with medical complexity: a process improvement pilot in a specialty pediatric setting. J Pediatr Health Care 34(2):90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2019.07.006
Appachi S, Banas A, Feinberg L, Henry D, Kenny D, Kraynack N, Rosneck A, Carl J, Krakovitz P (2017) JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 143(11):1117–1121. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2017.1743
Baker CD, Martin S, Thrasher J, Moore HM, Baker J, Abman SH, Gien J (2016) A Standardized discharge process decreases length of stay for ventilator-dependent children. Pediatrics 137(4):e20150637. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-0637
Barreda CB, Ehlenbach ML, Nackers A, Kelly MM, Shadman KA, Sklansky DJ, Edmonson MB, Zhao Q, Warner G, Coller RJ (2021) Complex care program enrollment and change in ed and hospital visits from medical device complications. Pediatr Qual Saf 6(5):e450. https://doi.org/10.1097/pq9.0000000000000450
Braun L, Steurer M, Henry D (2021) Healthcare utilization of complex chronically ill children managed by a telehealth-based team. Front Pediatr 16(9):689572. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2021.689572
Breen C, Altman L, Ging J, Deverell M, Woolfenden S, Zurynski Y (2018) Significant reductions in tertiary hospital encounters and less travel for families after implementation of Paediatric Care Coordination in Australia. BMC Health Serv Res 18(1):751. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3553-4
Cohen E, Friedman JN, Mahant S, Adams S, Jovcevska V, Rosenbaum P (2010) The impact of a complex care clinic in a childrens’s hospital. Child Care Health Dev 36(4):574–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2009.01069.x
Cohen E, Lacombe-Duncan A, Spalding K, MacInnis J, Nicholas D, Narayanan UG, Gordon M, Margolis I, Friedman JN (2012) Integrated complex care coordination for children with medical complexity: a mixed-methods evaluation of tertiary care-community collaboration. BMC health services research 12:66. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-366
Coller RJ, Klitzner TS, Lerner CF, Nelson BB, Thompson LR, Zhao Q, Saenz AA, Ia S, Flores-Vazquez J, Chung PJ (2018) Complex care hospital use and postdischarge coaching: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics 142(2):e20174278. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-4278
Donnelly S, Shaw E, Timoney P, Foca M, Hametz P (2020) Parents’ assessment of an advanced-practice nurse and care coordination assistant model medical care coordination program for children with medical complexity. J Pediatr Health Care 34(4):325–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2020.01.007
Duffy LV, Vessey JA (2016) A Randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of the creating opportunities for parent empowerment program for parents of children with epilepsy and other chronic neurological conditions. J Neurosci Nurs 48(3):166–174. https://doi.org/10.1097/JNN.0000000000000199
Gay JC, Thurm CW, Hall M, Fassino MJ, Fowler L, Palusci JV, Berry JG (2016) Home health nursing care and hospital use for medically complex children. Pediatrics 138(5):e20160530. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-0530
Gillen JK, Morris MC (2019) Preparing families of technology-dependent children for emergencies. Hosp Pediatr 9(11):874–879. https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2019-0091
Graham RJ, McManus ML, Rodday AM, Weidner RA, Parsons SK (2018) Pediatric specialty care model for management of chronic respiratory failure: cost and savings implications and misalignment with payment models. Pediatr Crit Care Med 19(5):412–420. https://doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0000000000001472
Hogan AK, Galligan MM, Stack NJ, Leach KF, Aredas BL, English R, Dye M, Rubin D (2022) A tertiary care-based complex care program: improving care for children with medical complexity. Med Care 58(11):958–962. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000001388
Holland DE, Conlon PM, Rohlik GM, Gillard KL, Messner PK, Mundy LM (2015) Identifying hospitalized pediatric patients for early discharge planning: a feasibility study. J Pediatr Nurs 30(3):454–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2014.12.011
Howard SW, Zhang Z, Buchanan P, Armbrecht E, Williams C, Wilson G, Hutchinson J, Pearson L, Ellsworth S, Byler CM et al (2017) The effect of a comprehensive care transition model on cost and utilization for medically complex children with cerebral palsy. J Pediatr Health Care 31(6):634–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2017.04.017
Knight LJ, Wintch S, Nichols A, Arnolde V, Schroeder AR (2013) Saving a life after discharge: CPR training for parents of high-risk children. J Healthc Qual 35(1):9–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1945-1474.2012.00221.x
Lerret SM, Johnson NL, Polfuss M, Weiss M, Gralton K, Klingbeil CG, Gibson C, Garnier-Villarreal M, Ahamed SI, Adib R et al (2020) Using the engaging parents in education for discharge (eped) ipad application to improve parent discharge experience. J Pediatr Nurs 52:41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2020.02.041
Liu Y, McGowan E, Tucker R, Glasgow L, Kluckman M, Vohr B (2018) Transition home plus program reduces medicaid spending and health care use for high-risk infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit for 5 or more days. J Pediatr 200:91-97.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.04.038
Ming DY, Li T, Ross MH, Frush J, He J, Goldstein BA, Jarrett V, Krohl N, Docherty SL, Turley CB, Bosworth HB (2022) Feasibility of post-hospitalization telemedicine video visits for children with medical complexity. J Pediatr Health Care 36(2):e22–e35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2021.10.001
Moreno L, Peck JL (2020) Nurse practitioner-led telehealth to improve outpatient pediatric tracheostomy management in south texas. J Pediatr Health Care 34(3):246–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2019.11.008
Mosquera RA, Avritscher EBC, Pedroza C, Lee KH, Ramanathan S, Harris TS, Eapen JC, Yadav A, Caldas-Vasquez M, Poe M et al (2021a) Telemedicine for children with medical complexity: a randomized clinical trial. Pediatrics 148(3):e2021050400. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2021-050400
Mosquera RA, Avritscher EBC, Pedroza C, Bell CS, Samuels CL, Harris TS, Eapen JC, Yadav A, Poe M, Parlar-Chun RL et al (2021b) Hospital consultation from outpatient clinicians for medically complex children: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr 175(1):e205026. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.5026
Moyer VA, Papile LA, Eichenwald E, Giardino AP, Khan MM, Singh H (2014) An intervention to improve transitions from NICU to ambulatory care: quasi-experimental study. BMJ Qual Saf 23(12):e3. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001726
Nkoy F, Stone B, Hofmann M, Fassl B, Zhu A, Mahtta N, Murphy N (2021) Home-monitoring application for children with medical complexity: a feasibility trial. Hosp Pediatr 11(5):492–502. https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2020-002097
Nguyen V, Sarik DA, Dejos MC, Hilmas E (2018) Development of an interprofessional pharmacist-nurse navigation pediatric discharge program. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther 23(4):320–328. https://doi.org/10.5863/1551-6776-23.4.320
Noritz G, Madden M, Roldan D, Wheeler TA, Conkol K, Brilli RJ, Barnard J, Gleeson S (2017) A population intervention to improve outcomes in children with medical complexity. Pediatrics 139(1):e20153076. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-3076
Osorio SN, Gage S, Mallory L, Soung P, Satty A, Abramson EL, Provost L, Cooperberg D, IMPACT STUDY GROUP (2021) Factorial analysis quantifies the effects of pediatric discharge bundle on hospital readmission. Pediatrics 148(4):e2021049926. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2021-049926
Parker CL, Wall B, Tumin D, Stanley R, Warren L, Deal K, Stroud T, Crickmore K, Ledoux M (2020) Care coordination program for children with complex chronic conditions discharged from a rural tertiary-care academic medical center. Hosp Pediatr 10(8):687–693. https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2019-0323
Patel R, Nudelman M, Olarewaju A, Pooley SW, Jegatheesan P, Song D, Govindaswami B (2017) Homecare and healthcare utilization errors post-neonatal intensive care unit discharge. Adv Neonatal Care 17(4):258–264. https://doi.org/10.1097/ANC.0000000000000390
Petitgout JM (2018) The Financial impact of a hospital-based care coordination program for children with special health care needs. J Pediatr Health Care 32(1):3–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2017.06.003
Postier A, Chrastek J, Nugent S, Osenga K, Friedrichsdorf J (2014) Exposure to home-based pediatric palliative and hospice care and its impact on hospital and emergency care charges at a single institution. J Palliat Med 17(2):183–8. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2013.0287
Prickett K, Deshpande A, Paschal H, Simon D, Hebbar KB (2019) Simulation-based education to improve emergency management skills in caregivers of tracheostomy patients. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 120:157–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.01.020
Roundy LM, Filloux FM, Kerr L, Rimer A, Bonkowsky JL (2016) Seizure action plans do not reduce health care utilization in pediatric epilepsy patients. J Child Neurol 31(4):433–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0883073815597755
Sarik D, Winterhalter M, Calamaro C (2018) Improving the transition from hospital to home for clinically complex children. Pediatr Nurs 44(6):281–287
Sigalet E, Cheng A, Donnon T, Koot D, Chatfield J, Robinson T, Catena H, Grant VJ (2014) A simulation-based intervention teaching seizure management to caregivers: a randomized controlled pilot study. Paediatr Child Health 19(7):373–378. https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/19.7.373
Statile AM, Schondelmeyer AC, Thomson JE, Brower LH, Davis B, Redel J, Hausfeld J, Tucker K, White DL, White CM (2016) Improving discharge efficiency in medically complex pediatric patients. Pediatrics 138(2):e20153832. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-3832
Thrasher J, Baker J, Ventre KM, Martin SE, Dawson J, Cox R, Moore HM, Brethouwer S, Sables-Baus S, Baker CD (2018) Hospital to home: a quality improvement initiative to implement high-fidelity simulation training for caregivers of children requiring long-term mechanical ventilation. J Pediatr Nurs 38:114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2017.08.028
Tiozzo E, Rosati P, Brancaccio M, Biagioli V, Ricci R, d'Inzeo V, Scarselletta G, Piga S, Vanzi V, Dall'Oglio I, Gawronski O et al (2022) A Cell-phone medication error ehealth app for managing safety in chronically ill young patients at home: a prospective Study. Telemed J E Health Epub Sep 7. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2022.0042
Tofil NM, Rutledge C, Zinkan JL, Youngblood AQ, Stone J, Peterson DT, Slayton D, Makris C, Magruder T, White ML (2013) Ventilator caregiver education through the use of high-fidelity pediatric simulators: a pilot study. Clin Pediatr 52(11):1038–1043. https://doi.org/10.1177/0009922813505901
Tolomeo CT, Major NE, Szondy MV, Bazzy-Asaad A (2017) Standardizing care and parental training to improve training duration, referral frequency, and length of stay: our quality improvement project experience. J Pediatr Nurs 32:72–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2016.10.004
Vohr B, McGowan E, Keszler L, Alksninis B, O’Donnell M, Hawes K, Tucker R (2017) Impact of a transition home program on rehospitalization rates of preterm infants. J Pediatr 181:86-92.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.10.025
Vohr B, McGowan E, Keszler L, O’Donnell M, Hawes K, Tucker R (2018) Effects of a transition home program on preterm infant emergency room visits within 90 days of discharge. J Perinatol 38(2):185–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2017.136
Wells S, O’Neill M, Rogers J, Blaine K, Hoffman A, McBride S, Tschudy MM, Shumskiy I, Mauskar S, Berry JG (2017) Nursing-led home visits post-hospitalization for children with medical complexity. J Pediatr Nurs 34:10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2017.03.003
Whalen M, Aebersold ML, Nelson K, Rooney DM (2020) The feasibility and use of simulation to assess parent learning. Clin Simul Nurs 38:23–26
Willard A, Brown E, Masten M, Brant M, Pouppirt N, Moran K, Lioy J, Chuo J (2018) Complex surgical infants benefit from postdischarge telemedicine visits. Adv Neonatal Care 18(1):22–30. https://doi.org/10.1097/ANC.0000000000000460
Yilmaz MC, Ozsoy SA (2010) Effectiveness of a discharge-planning program and home visits for meeting the physical care needs of children with cancer. Support Care Cancer 18(2):243–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-009-0650-2
Yuen A, Rodriguez N, Osorio SN, Nataraj C, Ward MJ, Clapper TC, Abramson E, Ching K (2021) Simulation-based discharge education program for caregivers of children with tracheostomies. Hosp Pediatr. 11(6):571–578. https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2020-000984
Zanello E, Calugi S, Sanders LM, Lenzi J, Faldella G, Rucci P, Fantini MP (2017) Care coordination for children with special health care needs: a cohort study. Ital J Pediatr 43(1):18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-017-0342-3
Barnert ES, Coller RJ, Nelson BB, Thompson LR, Tran J, Chan V, Padilla C, Klitzner TS, Szilagyi M, Chung PJ (2019) Key population health outcomes for children with medical complexity: a systematic review. Matern Child Health J 23(9):1167–1176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-019-02752-1
Agrawal R, Hall M, Cohen E, Goodman D., Kuo DZ, Neff JM, O'Neill M, Thomson J, Berry JG (2016) Trends in health care spending for children in medicaid with high resource use. Pediatrics 138(4):e20160682. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-0682
O’Mahony L, O’Mahony DS, Simon TD, Neff J, Klein EJ, Quan L (2013) Medical complexity and pediatric emergency department and inpatient utilization. Pediatrics 131(2):e559–e565. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-1455
Barnert ES, Coller R, Nelson BB, Thompson LR, Klitzner TS, Szilagyi M, Breck AM, Chung PJ (2018) A healthy life for a child with medical complexity: 10 domains for conceptualizing health. Pediatrics 142(3):e20180779. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-0779
Sidra M, Sebastianski M, Ohinmaa A, Rahman S (2022) Reported costs of children with medical complexity-a systematic review. J Child Health Care 24:13674935221109683. https://doi.org/10.1177/13674935221109683
Khan A, Baird J, Kelly MM, Blaine K, Chieco D, Haskell H, Lopez K, Ngo T, Mercer A, Quiñones-Pérez B et al (2022) Family safety reporting in medically complex children: parent, staff, and leader perspectives. Pediatrics 149(6):e2021053913. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2021-053913
Oliveira PV, Enes CC, Nucci LB (2022) How are children with medical complexity being identified in epidemiological studies? A systematic review. World J Pediatr 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12519-022-00672-9
Giovannetti ER, Dy S, Leff B, Weston C, Adams K, Valuck TB, Pittman AT, Blaum CS, McCann BA, Boyd CM (2013) Performance measurement for people with multiple chronic conditions: conceptual model. Am J Manag Care 19(10):e359–e366
Shippee ND, Shah ND, May CR, Mair FS, Montori VM (2012) Cumulative complexity: a functional, patient-centered model of patient complexity can improve research and practice. J Clin Epidemiol 65(10):1041–1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.05.005
Zullig LL, Whitson HE, Hastings SN, Beadles C, Kravchenko J, Akushevich I, Maciejewski ML (2016) A systematic review of conceptual frameworks of medical complexity and new model development. J Gen Intern Med 31(3):329–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3512-2
Funding
This project is made possible by the Foundation “Steun Emma Kinderziekenhuis” and The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw; 845008701). Both funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Annemieke de Lange, Clara van Karnebeek, Jeroen van Woensel en Jolanda Maaskant contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Annemieke de Lange, Heleen Haspels, Mattijs van Alsem, Faridi van Etten-Jamaludin and Jolanda Maaskant. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Annemieke de Lange and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
The Institutional Review Board of the Amsterdam UMC location AMC waived the need for ethical approval (W20_220 #20.007).
Consent to participate
Not applicable to this manuscript.
Consent to publish
Not applicable to this manuscript.
Competing interest
The authors have no conflict of interest relevant to this article to disclose.
Additional information
Communicated by Peter de Winter
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
de Lange, A., Alsem, M.W., Haspels, H.N. et al. Hospital-to-home transitions for children with medical complexity: part 1, a systematic review of reported outcomes. Eur J Pediatr 182, 3805–3831 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-023-05050-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-023-05050-9