Why the study?
Hospitals face pressure to reduce unplanned utilization from an aging population, and the effectiveness of the CARED program in reducing hospital readmissions and emergency department re-attendances needed evaluation.
Does the CARED program reduce hospital readmissions and ED re-attendances in at-risk patients presenting to the emergency department?
Does the CARED program reduce hospital readmissions and ED re-attendances in at-risk patients presenting to the emergency department?
The CARED program effectively reduces unplanned hospital admissions, ED re-attendances, and healthcare costs for at-risk patients discharged from the emergency department.
CARED was associated with reduced short-term unplanned hospital use; leaves open need for prospective trials before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Hospitals face mounting pressure to reduce unplanned utilization amid rising healthcare demands from an aging population. The Case management for At-Risk patients in the Emergency Department (CARED) program is among the first ED transitional care strategies to focus on both frail older adults and emergency department (ED) re-attenders to reduce acute hospital utilization. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the CARED program in reducing hospital (re)admissions and ED re-attendances within 30- and 60 days post-discharge. METHODS: A retrospective, propensity-matched study was conducted from April 2022 to July 2023 in the ED of Ng Teng Fong General Hospital in Singapore. The CARED program identifies and enrols at-risk patients, i.e. frail older adults and patients who re-attend the ED within 30 days of hospital discharge, for a geriatric assessment. This is followed by multidisciplinary team care, discharge planning and right siting of care from the ED to community-based services by ED case managers. The primary outcomes were hospital (re)admissions and ED re-attendances within 30- and 60 days post-discharge. Secondary outcomes were cost avoidance and bed occupancy days from reduced acute hospital usage. RESULTS: Nearest-neighbour 1:1 propensity score matching matched 1615 intervention group to 1615 control group. Baseline characteristics of the intervention and control groups did not differ significantly. Difference-in-differences (DID) analyses showed significantly lower 30-day (3.96%; 95% CI 2.71-5.23%) and 60-day (6.69%; 95% CI 5.47-7.91%) hospital admissions, as well as 30-day (4.89%; 95% CI 3.83-5.95%) and 60-day (6.50%; 95% CI 5.28-7.72%) ED re-attendances in the intervention group compared to the control group. Additionally, the reduced admission and ED re-attendance rates resulted in 30-day and 60-day inpatient admission costs avoidance [$1 553 548.96 (69.86%); 95% CI $1 525 827.76 to $1 581 270.15; P = .006; and $1 400 047.07 (32.56%); 95% CI $1 365 484.79 to $1434 609.37; P = .048, respectively], ED attendance costs avoidance [$25 849.92 (23.70%); 95% CI $25 091.93 to $26 607.89; P = .096; and $37 538.39 (18.09%); 95% CI $36 470.27 to $38 606.53; P = .086, respectively] and bed occupancy days saved (1212 days; 95% CI 1191.80 days to 1232.20 days; P = .003; and 1267 days; 95% CI 1242.58 days to 1291.42 days; P = .011, respectively). CONCLUSION: CARED program effectively reduced unplanned hospital use within 30- and 60 days post-ED discharge for at-risk patients. It also significantly lowered inpatient admission and ED attendance costs and hospital bed occupancy days, highlighting its potential to improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare expenses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ong et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: