Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/470
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorOlver, John-
dc.contributor.authorNew, Peter-
dc.contributor.otherCameron, Peter-
dc.contributor.otherStoelwinder, J.-
dc.date.accessioned2015-11-20T02:22:02Z-
dc.date.available2015-11-20T02:22:02Z-
dc.date.issued2011-11-
dc.identifier.citationMed J Aust. 2011 Nov 7;195(9):538-41en_US
dc.identifier.issn0025-729Xen_US
dc.identifier.issn1326-5377en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11434/470-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: To determine perceptions of barriers to admission to subacute care from acute hospital care, and barriers to subsequent discharge from subacute care. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Web-based survey of key stakeholders using Likert scales and closed questions. Prompts were emailed repeatedly to potential participants in Australia between 15 May and 24 July 2009. Participants were physicians working in inpatient rehabilitation medicine and aged care units, as well as senior hospital managers with responsibility for patient flow. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perceived admission and discharge barriers in subacute care. RESULTS: Half of the 101 respondents reported barriers to admission to subacute hospitals as moderate, severe or extreme, and 81% reported a similar grading of severity for barriers to discharge. There was no relationship between these perceptions and whether respondents worked only in the public hospital system (barriers to access: χ² = 0.02 [df = 1; P = 1.0]; and barriers to discharge: χ² = 0.0 [df = 1; P = 1.0]). The most commonly reported barriers to admission were: availability of beds (61% of respondents); physical, environmental and equipment inadequacies (62% of respondents); and allied health or nursing staff issues (55% of respondents). The most commonly reported barriers to discharge included: waiting for a more appropriate setting of care (76% of respondents) and funding for home modifications, equipment or carers (55% of respondents). There was no relationship between respondents' position and their reporting of various admission (χ² = 6.2; df = 8; P = 0.6) or discharge barriers (χ² = 13.8; df = 12; P = 0.3). CONCLUSION: There is a strong perception among key stakeholders in subacute care that there are major barriers to patient admission and discharge. Redistributing proposed funding for inpatient subacute beds to measures for overcoming these barriers is likely to improve patient flow though the whole hospital system.en_US
dc.publisherAustraliasian Medical Publishing Company (Australia)en_US
dc.subjectAgeden_US
dc.subjectFemaleen_US
dc.subjectGeriatricsen_US
dc.subjectPatient Admissionen_US
dc.subjectPatient Dischargeen_US
dc.subjectInpatientsen_US
dc.subjectNeeds Assessmenten_US
dc.subjectSubacute Careen_US
dc.subjectHospital Bed Capacityen_US
dc.subjectHealth Care Surveysen_US
dc.subjectHospital Administrationen_US
dc.subjectRehabilitationen_US
dc.subjectPatient Flowen_US
dc.subjectEpworth-Monash Rehabilitation Medicine Unit, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.en_US
dc.titleInpatient subacute care in Australia: perceptions of admission and discharge barriers.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleMedical Journal of Australiaen_US
dc.description.pubmedurihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22060090en_US
dc.description.affiliatesRehabilitation and Aged Care Services, Medical Program, Southern Health, Melbourne, VICen_US
dc.type.studyortrialSurveyen_US
dc.type.contenttypeTexten_US
Appears in Collections:Health Administration
Rehabilitation

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in Epworth are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.