Adding Enhanced Service to Standard Care: The Transitional Care Liaison
ollowing the implementation of the above changes to standard home health care practices, the agencies subsequently deployed full-time transitional care liaisons at local hospitals. This was a new role, requiring newly dedicated resources for the position. The role is modeled upon the Care Transitions Intervention [2],which emphasizes the value of initiating transitional care during the hospitalization. In this new role, the hospital-based home care liaisons establish a relationship with the patient, schedule immediate follow-up, review medications and the plan to obtain new medications, and review the plan of care in the hospital, prior to the transition home. On-site transitional care liaisons greatly facilitate clinical collaboration, allowing the “receiving” provider to request clarifications prior to discharge. On-site relationships also enable formal and informal mutual improvements in the transition process. An unanticipated benefit to this collaboration is that the agencies are able to identify some high-utilizing patients who are served by several area hospitals. Thus the agencies were able to add to the list of highest-risk patients for some hospitals that were otherwise unidentified.
Outcomes
The 30-day rehospitalization rate for NEHC was 31% during the baseline period (9/30/2008 to 6/30/2010). The quarterly variability in readmission rates was high, ranging from 20% to 42% in any given quarter. Following the start of the performance improvement initiative in Quarter 3 of 2010, and through the most recent quarter for which data are available (Quarter 3 2013) the quarterly 30-day readmission rates demonstrated decreased variability (15% to 22%) and the 30-day readmission rate was reduced to 17%—a 45% reduction in rehospitalizations. The agencies’ rehospitalization rates are lower than local benchmarks [1].
Lessons Learned
The agencies experience with this initiative has led to several lessons learned that may be of interest to other agencies and providers looking to design and implement care models to reduce rehospitalizations.
First, it was essential to supplement our knowledge of best practices from the literature and industry experts with an examination of our own data. In addition to examining rates of rehospitalization, we were able to identify patients at highest risk so we could intensify services early for this group.
Second, the 2 agencies participating in this effort are affiliated but independently managed, with separate staff and regional market differences. We were pleased to learn that a common service delivery model could be successfully implemented in both agencies. This suggests that this structured care delivery improvement approach can be replicated in other organizations and local contexts.
Third, by no means was the staff development and retraining a “one and done” effort; continuous reinforcement of the rationale for the practice change and the protocols for optimizing engagement to reduce rehospitalizations was required.
Finally, the performance improvement initiative started with an initial focus on heart failure patients. Over the course of the Initiative we named the series of practice changes our “Healthy@Home” model of care. As we expanded our focus to all patients at high risk of readmission (as identified by our risk assessment score), we learned that staff thought the Healthy@Home practice changes only applied to heart failure patients. This required re-messaging with the staff and regional supervisors.