RNMeta-AnalysisNursing open2022

Effectiveness of nurse-led discharge service on adult surgical inpatients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Huina Mao, Yarui Xie, Ying Shen and 2 others

PMID 35661429

WHAT IT FOUND

Nurse-led discharge services did not shorten hospital stays, but they reduced readmissions and emergency visits and improved quality of life in adult surgical patients.

Key findings

01Nurse-led discharge services reduced readmission (risk ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.53, p < .001) and emergency visits (risk ratio 0.44, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.68, p < .001) compared with routine care.

02Length of stay did not show a significant difference (pooled difference -0.49, 95% CI -1.01 to 0.02, p = .06).

03Quality of life scores were higher in the intervention group (SF-36 difference 7.40 points on the 0 to 100 scale, 95% CI 5.57 to 9.22, p < .001).

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The trials used different nurse-led discharge bundles, and many did not report the start time, team structure or exact follow-up details. Several risk-of-bias items were unclear, including allocation concealment, blinding of participants or personnel, and blinding of outcome assessors. Follow-up loss was found in all included studies, and only some used intention-to-treat analysis. Quality of life outcomes were pooled from only two trials each, and the SF-12 analysis had 97% heterogeneity. The review included only English and Chinese published studies, so relevant trials in other languages or unpublished work may be missing. Because the intervention was a bundle, the contribution of any single component cannot be separated.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that nurse-led discharge shortens hospital stay. Length of stay did not show a significant difference (pooled difference -0.49, 95% CI -1.01 to 0.02, p = .06). Also, the intervention was a bundle that could include perioperative nursing, health education, postoperative rehabilitation and follow-up, so do not assume any one component caused the benefits.

Read it on PubMed →