
==== Front
Eur Geriatr Med
Eur Geriatr Med
European Geriatric Medicine
1878-7649
1878-7657
Springer International Publishing Cham

38416399
947
10.1007/s41999-024-00947-6
Research Paper
A case vignette study to refine the target group of an intermediate care model: the Acute Geriatric Community Hospital
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4730-3178
Kroeze Eline D. e.d.kroeze@amsterdamumc.nl

1
de Groot Aafke J. 2
Smorenburg Susanne M. 1
Mac Neil Vroomen Janet L. 1
van Vught Anneke J. A. H. 34
Buurman Bianca M. 12
1 grid.7177.6 0000000084992262 Section of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2 grid.12380.38 0000 0004 1754 9227 Department of Medicine for Older People, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3 https://ror.org/0500gea42 grid.450078.e 0000 0000 8809 2093 HAN University of Applied Sciences, School of Health Studies, Research Group Organisation of Healthcare and Services, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
4 grid.413327.0 0000 0004 0444 9008 Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
28 2 2024
28 2 2024
2024
15 4 977989
20 10 2023
17 1 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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/.
Key summary points

Aim

Refining the admission criteria of the Acute Geriatric Community Hospital (AGCH) by defining its target group boundaries with (geriatric) hospital care and other bed-based intermediate care models.

Findings

The integration of medical specialist care (MSC) and medical generalist care (MGC) is unique for the AGCH compared to other intermediate care models and (geriatric) hospital care in the Netherlands. Based on these findings, 13 refined admission criteria were developed. Also, 10 additional consideration themes were identified.

Message

Because care is shifting from hospitals to the community, target group boundaries between (intermediate) care models should be continuously (re)defined; based on our experiences, we recommend using case vignettes as this yields rich and practical input.

Purpose

To refine the admission criteria of the Acute Geriatric Community Hospital (AGCH) by defining its target group boundaries with (geriatric) hospital care and other bed-based intermediate care models in the Netherlands.

Methods

A qualitative study consisting of a three-phase refinement procedure with case vignettes. Physicians, medical specialists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants in hospitals (n = 10) or intermediate care facilities (n = 10) in the Netherlands participated. They collected case vignettes from clinical practice (phase one). The referral considerations and decisions for each case were then documented through surveys (phase two) and two focus groups (phase 3). For thematic data analysis, inductive and deductive approaches were used.

Results

The combination of medical specialist care (MSC) and medical generalist care (MGC), is unique for the AGCH compared to other intermediate care models in the Netherlands. Compared to (geriatric) hospital care, the AGCH offers a more limited scope of MSC. Based on these findings, 13 refined admission criteria were developed such as ‘The required diagnostic tests to monitor the effectiveness of treatment are available at the AGCH’. Besides admission criteria, additional clinical and organizational considerations played a role in referral decision-making; 10 themes were identified.

Conclusion

This case vignette study defined the target group boundaries between the AGCH and other care models, allowing us to refine the AGCH admission criteria. Our findings may help to determine the required competencies of the interdisciplinary AGCH team and to develop triage instruments. The identified consideration themes can be used as conceptual framework in further research. The findings may also be of interests for healthcare systems outside the Netherlands who aspire to design integrated care for older people closer to home.

Keywords

Case vignettes
Qualitative research
Intermediate care
Acute geriatric unit
Admission criteria
Older people
issue-copyright-statement© European Geriatric Medicine Society 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Older patients who are acutely hospitalized are at risk of adverse health outcomes such as disability, morbidity, mortality, and readmission [1–6]. To avoid these negative outcomes and to help older adults live longer independently at home, several countries have implemented intermediate care models [7–10]. Intermediate care involves a broad range of temporary services that integrate care, ensure continuity and quality of care, and promote recovery at the interface between hospital and home, care home, primary care, and community services. These services are provided close to home, support early discharge, and reduce readmission to acute care [11, 12]. Examples of intermediate models are acute geriatric units [10, 13, 14], subacute care units in nursing homes [9, 15], community hospitals [16, 17], intensive outpatient follow-up [18] and hospital at home [19]. These models focus on preventing functional decline and frailty in older adults.

Acute geriatric units (AGUs) provide acute medical care services for older adults with Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions [20], such as heart failure, pneumonia, COPD, and frailty. When chronic conditions worsen or ‘minor’ acute events occur, patients receive acute care and early rehabilitation at the AGU instead of in the hospital [21]. AGUs appear similar to community hospitals in Northern Europe [22, 23] and the United Kingdom [16, 17] where mixed specialist and generalist expertise is provided. Nonetheless, patients typically stay longer at community hospitals (11–58 days [16, 17, 22, 23]) than at AGUs (10–14 days [21]) because community hospitals also provide post-acute care. Therefore, community hospitals and AGUs are distinct models of care.

The AGU model pioneered in Spain in 2012, and is a potential alternative to conventional hospitalization for older adults [10, 13]. The AGU model was recently implemented in Amsterdam (referred to as the Acute Geriatric Community Hospital (AGCH)) and has proven effective [14]. A prospective controlled observational study showed that patients admitted to the AGCH had a lower risk of readmission or death within 90 days after discharge than patients admitted to the hospital [24]. Patient satisfaction was high [25] and incident rates for delirium were lower [26] compared with control groups. These findings have motivated multiple stakeholders to scale up the model to other sites in the Netherlands.

To scale up the AGCH model, the criteria that determine admission to the AGCH over other intermediate care models and (geriatric) hospital care needed to be refined to ensure the ‘right’ patients are admitted [27]. Therefore, the aim of this study was to refine the AGCH admission criteria by defining how its targeted patient group differs from (geriatric) hospital care and other bed-based intermediate care models in the Netherlands.

Methods

The Dutch context

Because of rising expenses in long-term care (LTC), the Dutch government reformed the healthcare system in 2015 with a shift to the non-residential setting. This involved stricter criteria for LTC admission, with nursing homes only admitting patients needing continuous care [28]. The government also introduced short-term residential care (STRC) for patients needing short-term care that does not require hospital admission, but who cannot be treated at home [7]. STRC was, next to geriatric rehabilitation (GR), the second bed-based intermediate care model available in the Netherlands. A third model, the AGCH, was recently introduced as an alternative to hospitalization for older patients with frailty. Care at the AGCH is provided by an interdisciplinary team of nurses (with experience in hospital and community care) and paramedics (see Table 1). At the AGCH in Amsterdam, care is coordinated by a nurse practitioner, physician assistant or medical resident in collaboration with a hospital geriatrician. Other sites are exploring whether the elderly care physician (ECP) can fulfill this role. ECPs are primary care experts in geriatric medicine and traditionally provide medical generalist care services in nursing homes. Geriatricians (or other medical specialists) traditionally provide medical specialist care services in the hospital (see Supplement 1.3). The feasibility of a nurse-led AGCH is also being explored, where care would be coordinated by the nurse practitioner or physician assistant.Table 1 Bed-based intermediate care models in the Netherlands

Bed-based intermediate care for frail older adults in the Netherlands	
Geriatric revalidation	Short-term residential stay	Acute Geriatric Community Hospital	
Definition:

Post-acute multidisciplinary (para)medic care for older and frail patients, including those with pre-existing functional decline or specific care needs [45, 46]

	Definition:

Medical care for older adults with general health problems that do not require specialist care nor geriatric rehabilitation, but whose treatment and care needs cannot be met at home [7]

	Definition:

(Sub)acute specialized geriatric medical care for older patients with frailty [14]

	
Goal:

To optimize functional capacities and support societal participation despite impairments, so that frail and/or older individuals can return home and live independently in the community [32]

	Goal:

Recovery so that older adults can return home and live independently in the community [7]

	Goal:

To provide medical specialist care for frail older adults in an adapted environment, so they can return home, live independently in the community and hospital (re)admissions are prevented [14]

	
Admission route:

Admission from hospital, ED, or home [32]

Referral by a medical specialist or ECP using a comprehensive geriatric assessment [32]

	Admission route:

Admission from home, ED, or hospital [7]

Referral by GP or medical specialist [7]

	Admission route:

Admission from ED [14]

Referral by a medical pecialist [14]

	
Admission criteria [47]:

(i) Medical stability

(ii) Multidisciplinary rehabilitation needs

(iii) Frailty and/or multimorbidity

(iv) Motivation/preference to undergo rehabilitation treatment

(v) A cognitive and physical status that allows participation in geriatric rehabilitation

Targeted diagnoses: (1) stroke, (2) elective orthopedics, (3) trauma surgery (e.g., hip fractures), (4) amputations, and (5) other disorders (neurodegenerative diseases, oncological diseases, COPD, cardiac failure, internal- and multi-system failure)

	Admission criteria [7]:

No guidelines or targeted patient groups

	Admission criteria (before 2023) [14]:

(i) Older patient with an acute medical problem that requires hospitalization, such as pneumonia or exacerbation of chronic conditions such as heart failure

(ii) Geriatric conditions (e.g. delirium, cognitive/functional impairment, falls)

(iii) Hemodynamic stability

(iv) No complex diagnostic testing needed such as CT or MRI scans during admission

(v) Return to previous living situation expected in 14 days

	
See Supplement 1 for the complete table (with staffing, coordinating practitioners, treatment components and funding)

AGCH Acute Geriatric Community Hospital, COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, CT computed tomography, ED emergency department, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, STRC short-term residential care

Study design

To our knowledge, no guidelines and methods exist to refine admission criteria or to distinguish the target groups for different care models. Therefore, we developed and followed a target group refinement procedure of three phases, in which vignettes played a central role (Fig. 1). Case vignettes were chosen as this is valid, inexpensive, practical, and well-suited method for assessing the decision-making processes of healthcare professionals [29, 30]. We used the COREQ-checklist [31] to ensure all items relevant to reporting qualitative research were included (see Supplement 4). The study protocol was submitted to the Amsterdam University Medical Centre’s Medical Ethics Research Committee (file number 2023.0477). The need for official approval was waived as the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act did not apply. Written consent was obtained from all participants.Fig. 1 The three-phase refinement procedure with case vignettes

Participants and research team

The participants (n = 20) were ECPs, medical specialists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants involved in the implementation of an AGCH in their region and/or who were familiar with referral decision-making to intermediate and (geriatric) hospital care. A purposive sampling method was used to obtain participants from various professional backgrounds and regions. Participants were recruited via an e-mail explaining the goal of the study. The research team consisted of a PhD student with a health economic background (EK, MSc), a PhD student who worked as an ECP and specialized in GR (AG, MD), the AGCH program manager (SS, PhD), an associate professor with expertise on ‘aging in place’ policies (JM, PhD), an associate professor with expertise on ‘the right care at the right place’ (AV, PhD), and a professor in acute geriatric care (BB, PhD).

Data collection and analysis

Phase 1: Co-creating case vignettes

During phase one, participants collected case vignettes from clinical practice for a specific care model (AGCH, STRC, GR, (geriatric) hospital care) or for a ‘gray area’ between the AGCH and other care models. First, a format was designed for the case vignettes (Supplement 2a) (EK, SS) based on the somatic, psychological, functional, and social geriatric domains. Also an overview of bed-based referral options for older adults after admission to the emergency department was created (EK, SS, BB). With this overview (Supplement 2b) and with the stakeholders’ questions in mind on the boundaries between the AGCH and other care models, a case vignette request strategy (Supplement 2c) was drafted (EK, SS). Participants were asked to collect 1–3 cases from clinical practice and to submit these cases (anonymized) using Microsoft Word. The data were e-mailed to the researcher (EK) and converted into a JPG file. An example of a case vignette is provided in Supplement 2d.

Phase 2: Case vignette surveys

In phase 2, a survey was conducted to gather information on the referral decisions and considerations of at least three participants per case vignette in three contexts: 1) the current regional context in which the participant practices, 2) the current regional context plus the AGCH as available care model, and 3) the regional context in which all bed-based intermediate and (geriatric) hospital care options are continuously available. The rationale behind this was to elicit information about the current referral practice in the region, the possible shift in patient flows after implementation of an AGCH, and the referral decision considered appropriate by participants in an ideal regional situation. A concept version of the survey was discussed during an one-hour online feedback session (with participants E, K, and G in Microsoft Teams) and refined accordingly (EK, SS). The final survey (SurveyMonkey) included 12 questions per case vignette (seven open and five closed questions; see Supplement 2d). In the first survey round, each participant received an unique link with three case vignettes to review (3 × 12 questions).

Data were analyzed after the survey deadline. The survey data from round one were first merged into one data document, and case vignettes with diverse referral outcomes and/or with fewer than three referral decisions were selected (EK, SM) for round two. Some participants indicated that information was missing so they could not make a fully informed decision. This missing information was retrieved via e-mail from the case provider and added to the case vignette so that participants had this information for the second survey round and the focus groups.

After round two, EK and SS summarized the results per case vignette and read all qualitative data. Then they analyzed the data manually and separately 1) to identify the boundary questions (i.e., questions participants raised on the boundaries between the AGCH and other care models) and 2) to identify desirable changes to the AGCH admission criteria. After discussing this analysis, SS and EK created an initial coding scheme for the data analysis in Atlast.ti (see 2.3.4) and drafted the first version of the refined admission criteria.

Phase 3: Focus groups

In phase three, the boundary questions were discussed during two focus groups using the case vignettes. The three goals of these sessions were 1) to answer the boundary questions, 2) to explore healthcare professionals’ considerations during referral decision-making, and 3) to member-check the refined admission criteria. Data were considered saturated when the boundary questions from focus group participants and researchers were answered. Ultimately, two one-hour focus groups were conducted online in Microsoft Teams. Both were led by SS and observed by EK, and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The AGCH program leaders were also invited to participate. The conclusions from the focus groups were summarized and sent to the participants for comments and/or corrections.

Data analysis

After phase three, all qualitative data from the case vignette surveys and focus groups were analyzed in Atlas.ti (software version 9.0.24.0) using a deductive and inductive approach. The a priori categories were drawn from the initial coding scheme formulated by EK and SS after phase two. As our objective was to also identify the considerations made by healthcare professionals during referral decision-making, three extra a priori categories were added: clinical considerations (3A), organizational considerations (3B), and weighing consideration themes (3C). Data on theme 3A were analyzed deductively based on de Groot et al.’s framework [32] of clinical triage factors in acutely hospitalized older patients. Relevant new categories were included. Data on themes 3B and 3C were coded inductively. After all data were coded, EK and AG discussed the coding scheme. If the data were not sufficient to support the a priori categories, they were removed. EK and AG agreed on the final codes and categories and the overarching themes (see Supplement 3, Table S5).

Results

Participants and case vignettes

Twenty healthcare professionals from nine (pioneer) regions participated (see Table 2): 12 provided patient cases (phase one), 17 were survey respondents (phase two), and six participated in one or two focus groups (phase three). Of the 28 case vignettes requested during phase one, 23 were delivered (see table S3, Supplement 2c). These 23 cases were reviewed by the participants of survey round one, and six of these 23 cases were reviewed in round two by 10 participants who had not reviewed the case vignette before. The survey results (phase two) are illustrated per case vignette in Table S4 (Supplement 3).Table 2 Participant characteristics and participation

Participant characteristics	Participation during …	
Code	Profession	Setting	Region	Phase 1
Case collection	Phase 2
Case vignette survey
(round 1 + 2)	Phase 3
Focus groups	
A	ECP	Intermediate care facility	1	✓	✓ ✓		
B	CG	Hospital	1	✓	✓		
C	ECP	Intermediate care facility	2	✓			
D	ECP	Intermediate care facility	3		✓ ✓		
E	MS	Hospital	3	✓	✓ ✓		
F	ECP	Hospital	3		✓		
G	CG	Hospital	4	✓	✓ ✓	✓ ✓	
H	ECP	Intermediate care facility	5	✓	✓ ✓	✓ ✓	
I	CG	Hospital	5	✓	✓ ✓	✓ ✓	
J	ECP	Intermediate care facility	6	✓	✓ ✓		
K	MS	Hospital	7	✓	✓	✓	
L	CG	Intermediate care facility	7		✓ ✓	✓	
M	NP	Hospital	7		✓		
N	CG	Intermediate care facility	8	✓			
O	MS	Hospital	8			✓	
P	MS	Hospital	9		✓		
Q	NP	Skilled nursing facility	9	✓	✓ ✓		
R	PA	Skilled nursing facility	9		✓		
S	PA	Skilled nursing facility	9		✓		
T	NP	Hospital	9	✓	✓ ✓		
				N = 12	N = 17 | N = 10	N = 6 | N = 3	
ECP elderly care physician, CG clinical geriatrician, MS medical specialist (other than CG), NP nurse practitioner, PA physician assistant

Discussing the boundaries between the AGCH and other care models

The boundary questions raised by survey participants (phase 2) were categorized into 10 themes. There were questions on A) the completeness of diagnostics and treatment plan before transfer to the AGCH, B) the maximum monitoring and treatment possible at the AGCH, C) the handling of treatment risks at the AGCH, D) medical specialist(s) (in consult) at the AGCH, E) functional decline and the rehabilitation goals mandatory for AGCH admission, F) geriatric syndromes mandatory for AGCH admission, G) referral decision-making for patients with delirium, H) the maximum treatment complexity at other intermediate care models, I) the maximum observation and treatment intensity at other intermediate care models, and J) the observation of cognitive functioning at other intermediate care models. During focus group 1 (phase 3), the boundary between the AGCH and (geriatric) hospital care was discussed, and boundary questions A–G were addressed using case vignettes 5, 9, 11 and 16. During focus group two, the boundary between the AGCH and other bed-based intermediate care models was discussed, and boundary questions G–J were addressed using case vignettes 4, 10, 15 and 17.

The AGCH versus (geriatric) hospital care

An indication for medical specialist care (MSC) is needed for admission to the AGCH and a (geriatric) hospital ward. The AGCH offers a limited scope for MSC, which was defined by the participants as “low-complex specialized geriatric care from the hospital perspective”. Unlike the (geriatric) hospital ward, the AGCH provides these ‘low-complex’ MSC services with medical generalist care (MGC) services (such as early rehabilitation).

Based on the case vignette discussions, treatments that are minimally available at the AGCH are intravenous medication, oxygen, nebulizing, tube feeding, and airway suctioning. Participants considered (geriatric) hospital care more appropriate for older patients who were hemodynamically unstable and needed intense monitoring (such as continuous vital signs monitoring) or complex diagnostics to finalize or monitor the treatment plan. Finally, patients should not be admitted if there are substantial (treatment) risks for which care could not be provided at the AGCH, such as an intensive care (IC) risk and no IC treatment limitation decision.

Diagnostics is more limited at the AGCH than at a general hospital, so participants argued that the diagnoses and treatment plan must be clear before AGCH admission. Nevertheless, the AGCH can monitor the effectiveness of treatment and can adjust the treatment plan if needed. Diagnostics available at the AGCH include point-of-care testing, electrocardiograms, bladder scans, pulse oximetry, and simple x-ray. Additional diagnostics might be available depending on the AGCH location. If an AGCH is situated inside or in close proximity to the hospital, the staff may be able to use the diagnostic resources of the hospital (e.g., CT/MRI scan or quick laboratory testing). Whether patients with infectious diseases can be admitted to the ACGH depends on the quarantine possibilities. Lastly, the AGCH needs a closed ward to accommodate patients at risk of wandering. These patients do not receive appropriate care at hospital, so the focus groups advocated for AGCH locations to admit patients with MSC indications and risk of wandering.

AGCH versus bed-based intermediate care

Focus group participants concluded that the boundary between the AGCH and other bed-based intermediate care models is defined by an indication for MSC. Unlike other bed-based intermediate care models in the Netherlands, the AGCH uniquely combines MSC and MGC elements as the medical specialist is involved in the care provided at the AGCH. In other Dutch bed-based intermediate care models, the ECP or GP is responsible and no medical specialist is involved, so only patients requiring MGC are admitted.

Our case vignette survey and focus group results revealed that several specialized services are provided at some STRC/GR facilities. These services include intravenous treatment or a peripherally inserted central catheter line. Focus group participants argued that this is desirable as long as 1) the ECP or GP and the nursing team are capable and have the expertise to deliver these (acute) specialized services and/or interventions without the involvement of a medical specialist, 2) the high intensity of treatment and monitoring can be met by the ECP or GP and the nursing team, and 3) the care is properly reimbursed. According to the participants, GR (unlike the AGCH) prioritizes the rehabilitation needs of patients. Therefore, rehabilitation goals are set and the treatment needed to reach these goals starts at GR admission.

The refined AGCH admission criteria

After phase 2, the refined AGCH admission criteria were drafted according to the survey data analysis. These criteria were then further refined based on feedback from the focus group. Ultimately, 13 refined AGCH admission criteria were defined (see Table 3).Table 3 Initial and refined AGCH admission criteria

Initial AGCH admission criteria [14]	Refined admission criteria (2023)	
(i). Older patient with an acute medical problem that requires hospitalization, such as pneumonia or exacerbation of chronic conditions such as heart failure

(ii). Hemodynamic stability

(iii). No need for complex diagnostic testing such as CT or MRI scans during admission

(iv). Return to previous living situation expected in 14 days

(v). Geriatric conditions (e.g. delirium, cognitive/functional impairment, falls)

	1. The patient has an acute medical care need (e.g., exacerbation of chronic conditions such as heart failure, COPD, diabetes mellitus; acute ‘minor events’ like respiratory tract infections such as pneumonia, urinary tract infections; observations and pain relief after fall without fracture).

2. The patient has one or more geriatric syndromes (e.g., functional impairments/decline; cognitive impairments such as delirium and dementia; fall risk; malnutrition).

3. The medical specialist must be involved in the treatment.

4. The patient is hemodynamically stable.

5. The diagnoses and treatment plan are clear before AGCH admission.

6. The required treatment (complexity) is possible at the AGCH. Treatment options: intravenous medication, oxygen, nebulizing, tube feeding, airway suctioning.*

7. The diagnostic tests needed to monitor the effectiveness of treatment are available at the AGCH. Diagnostic options: electrocardiogram, POC testing (e.g. hemoglobin, blood gas, calcium, CRP, troponin, INR, glucose, ACT, blood ketone, creatine), bladder scan, pulse oximeter, x-ray.*

8. The required continuous nursing assistance and monitoring intensity is feasible at the AGCH.*

9. Risks (of treatment) lead to consequences which are treatable at, or in close proximity to, the AGCH (or the patient has a treatment limitation policy such as no intensive care).*

10. In case of the treatment of patients with wandering symptoms, behavioral problems, and infectious diseases (e.g., influenza, COVID), safe admission to the AGCH is possible.*

11. Return to previous living situation (or admission to residential LTC) is expected within 14 days.

12. Early rehabilitation and activation to prevent functional decline will benefit the patient

13. A low stimuli environment will benefit the patient (e.g., delirium preventive)

	
ACT activated clotting time, AGCH Acute Geriatric Community Hospital, COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, CRP C-reactive protein, CT computed tomography, INR international normalized ratio, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, LTC long-term care, POC point-of-care

*Further specification per AGCH location is needed: 6) additional treatment options, 7) additional diagnostic options, 8) feasible monitoring intensity (at night), 9) consequences which are not treatable at the AGCH (or in close proximity to the AGCH), 10) patients for whom safe admission to the AGCH is not possible

The participants concluded that the combination of MSC and MGC is unique in the Netherlands to the AGCH model of intermediate care. Therefore, a criterion (3) was added that states that the medical specialist must be involved in the treatment to meet the acute medical care needs. How much involvement is required will depend on the competency of the ECP or GP and/or the nursing team. Furthermore, criterion 3 was refined into a more specific criterion (5): ‘the diagnoses and treatment plan are clear’. In addition, criteria 6–10 were formulated so they can be further specified by (future) AGCH facilities. The (extra) treatment possibilities (criteria 6, 9, and 10) and diagnostic tests available (criterion 7) as well as the feasible intensity of monitoring (criterion 8) should be defined by each AGCH. The AGCH intervention was designed to minimize the risk of functional decline, delirium, and readmission. Therefore, criterion five was refined into ‘the patient has one or more geriatric syndromes’ (criterion 2). In addition, criteria 12 and 13 were added: ‘early rehabilitation and activation to prevent functional decline and a low stimuli environment are of benefit for the patient’.

Considerations during referral decision-making

The AGCH admission criteria were not the only decisive element during referral decision-making. Other considerations can be divided into clinical and organizational considerations (Table 4). Seven clinical consideration categories were identified: demographic, somatic, cognitive and mental status, social, mobility and functional status, multi-domain, and patient preferences. Focus group participants concluded that referral decision-maker formulates a decision by weighing these clinical considerations, in agreement with other professionals (e.g., a medical specialist, ECP, GP, nurse practitioner, physician assistant).Table 4 Consideration themes and (sub)categories

	Consideration categories	Consideration subcategories	
Clinical considerations*	Demographic	Age

Characteristics housing

	
Somatic**	Clinical status

Diagnosis-related

Plan for treatment

	
Cognitive and mental status	Dementia

Delirium (or risk of delirium)

Hallucinations

(Repellent) behavior

Other cognitive impairment(s)

Receptive to instruction(s) for rehabilitation

Awareness of illness

Momentary well-being

	
Social***	Caregiver situation

Social system of patient

Involvement of case manager (dementia)

	
Mobility and functional status	Mobility

Functional independence (ADL/iADL)

Functional decline (ΔADL/ΔiADL)

Barthel index

Premorbid activity limitation

High fall risks

Patient’s capacity for training

	
Multi-domain****	Case complexity

Judgment concerning probability of returning to own home

LTC indication (and on waiting list)

Patient has a rehabilitation need

Self-management ability

(Reduced) self-care

	
Patient preferences***	Limited treatment policy

Wishes of the patient with respect to LTC admission

Follow-up care possible at same facility? (fewer transfers)

	
Organizational considerations*	Micro-level: Care process at the (intermediate) care location	Diagnostic procedures

Observational procedures

Execution of treatment (plan)

Capability and expertise of the intermediate care team

Multidisciplinary care

Coordination of care

Environmental factors

	
Meso-level: Regional organization of (acute) care for older people	Availability of intermediate care beds (and which models)

Possibilities of acute care in an outpatient or home setting

Availability of home care

Availability of support material/instruments to use at home

Time of day when referral decision-making takes place

	
Macro-level: Healthcare system factors	Patient’s insurance

Pressure to discharge early

Reimbursement for provided care (not sufficient)

Costs for society/efficiency of care

Admission to care model possible directly after ED visit?

	
*Renamed, in the de Groot et al. [32]: clinical and organizational triage factors ** renamed, in de Groot et al. [32]: diagnoses, syndromes; *** new category; ****renamed, in de Groot et al. [32]: multi-domain tools and measures)

ADL activities of daily living, iADL instrumental activities of daily living, LTC long-term care, ED emergency department

Organizational considerations influencing the referral decision were categorized into micro-, meso- and macro-level factors. Micro-level factors concerned the care process at the (intermediate) care locations (e.g., the capabilities and expertise of the intermediate care team, and whether the diagnostic and (multidisciplinary) treatment needs can be provided safely). Meso-level considerations concerned the manner in which acute care for older people is organized in the region (e.g., the availability of beds and the possibilities of providing acute geriatric care in an outpatient/home setting). Macro-level factors concerned the organization of the national healthcare system (e.g., whether the care is sufficiently reimbursed). When these organizational factors are barriers for admission, healthcare professionals indicated that they would choose the ‘next best option’.

Discussion

Our findings have uncovered differences between target groups of the AGCH, (geriatric) hospital care, and other bed-based intermediate care models in the Netherlands. Based on these findings, 13 refined admission criteria have been formulated. We found that referral decision-making is not only a matter of ‘ticking off’ the admission criteria but also involves multiple clinical and organizational considerations. Because care is shifting from hospitals to the community, target group boundaries between (intermediate) care models should be continually (re)defined, particularly when a new model is implemented. Drawing from our experiences, we recommend using a three-phase procedure with case vignettes as this yields rich and practical input. The comprehensive description of intermediate care models and their target group boundaries can also be of interest for healthcare systems outside the Netherlands who aspire to design integrated care for older people closer to home.

Based on our findings, we anticipate that implementing the AGCH will induce several changes for healthcare professionals and organizations. First, the AGCH has to be implemented in synergy with other interventions along the continuum of integrated care for older people closer to home. When combined specialist and generalist medical services are not required for the acute geriatric patient, admission to another intermediate care model, such as geriatric rehabilitation or short-term residential care is more appropriate. These should preferably be available without barriers, so that waiting days are minimal. Second, we expect that hospitals will have a more limited role in providing MSC care to geriatric patients as low-complex care (from the hospital perspective) will be moved to the AGCH. To facilitate this shift, the referring healthcare professionals should trust that patients can be safely treated at the AGCH. Having AGCH ambassadors at the emergency department could promote referral [27]. Third, intermediate care facilities will have new responsibilities. Based on the 13 refined (and per AGCH location specified) admission criteria, the competencies that need to be present in the interdisciplinary team to provide AGCH care should be discussed. Training and education will also be needed to give the nursing team the necessary knowledge and skills to provide acute geriatric MSC [27]. Fourth, the allocation of (coordinating) tasks and responsibilities for AGCH care should be discussed by the ECP and hospital geriatrician. A shared vision by these specialists for older people on their roles in acute care would facilitate this. Preferably, the need for intensive collaboration between these specialists and other healthcare professionals (such as the GP) along the whole continuum of care for frail older persons (from prevention to post-acute care) is highlighted in this vision. To stimulate intensive collaboration, joint training programs and/or the implementation of (intermediate) care models like the AGCH where specialist and generalist expertise is mixed, may function as catalysts. When nurse practitioners and physician assistants at the AGCH provide the care of the ECP (and/or hospital geriatrician), the legal consequences of transferring responsibilities should be clear [33]. Fifth, nursing home organizations will need to adjust their operations, logistics, and billing to provide acute care 24/7 because patient turnover is higher at the AGCH (x̄ length of stay 10 days [26]) than at the STRC (x̄ 34 days [34]) or GR (x̄ 43 days [35]). Finally, those providing specialized services at intermediate care facilities should use the 13 refined admission criteria to determine which of these services can be defined as AGCH care. The expected length of stay (max. 14 days) will play a crucial role in this process.

In accordance with previous research, we found that referral decision-making involves more than just ‘ticking off’ the admission criteria. Eligibility is assessed by considering seven patient factor themes: demographics, somatic status, cognitive and mental status, social situation, mobility and functional status, multi-domain criteria, and patient preference. These characteristics arise from a comprehensive (geriatric) assessment, so correspond to the criteria of multi-domain tools to identify rehabilitation needs or predict rehabilitation outcomes [36, 37]. When the preferred referral decision is not possible because of micro-, meso-, or macro-level organizational factors, healthcare professionals deviate to the second-best option. Similar to the findings of Pearson et al. [11], we found that regional health system characteristics (meso) could bound care options for service users. In agreement with Buntin et al. [38], we also found that healthcare professionals deviate to the second-best option when the facility characteristics (micro) are not appropriate. Previous research has also reported on the limitations that national healthcare regulations and insurance policies (macro) put on referral options [39–42]. This corresponds with our finding that healthcare professionals consider whether reimbursement for the delivered care would be sufficient if the patient were admitted to the clinically optimal referral option. Noteworthy is that ‘the wish of family caregivers’, ‘telemedicine’ and/or ‘IT systems’ were not identified as themes, whilst we can imagine that this could have an influence on the decision-making process in practice.

The target group was refined in several cycles of action and reflection, and four main lessons were learned. First, case vignette surveys allowed us to collect superficial data, but did not provide an in-depth understanding of the boundaries between care models. Therefore, we added participant interaction through focus groups, which sharpened and redefined the individual responses [43]. Second, case vignettes were a useful tool for surveys and focus groups because they ‘speak the language of healthcare professionals’ and enable concrete discussion about boundaries. Third, case vignettes situated in the ‘gray areas’ between care models provided the most valuable input for answering the boundary questions and refining the admission criteria. Therefore, the target group refinement procedure should focus on collecting and reviewing these case vignettes. Fourth, fellow researchers with medical knowledge and practical referral experience are vital for chairing the focus groups or accurately analyzing the data.

Our research objective was to refine the AGCH admission criteria by defining the target group boundaries between (geriatric) hospital care and other bed-based intermediate care models in the Netherlands. Therefore, we did not collect case vignettes for other intermediate care model boundaries (i.e., STRC versus GR). We also collected only one case vignette of a patient with palliative and end of life care needs, whilst this is often a reality of (post-)acute care for older people. This constraints our ability to develop an intermediate care triage tool for Dutch referral decision-makers. To create such a comprehensive triage tool, additional case vignettes for the target group boundaries between STRC and GR should be discussed. Another limitation is scope of questions we addressed during the case vignette questionnaire and focus groups. This limitation could have attributed to not identifying ‘the wish of family caregivers’, ‘telemedicine’ and/or ‘IT systems’ as themes from our qualitative data. We also wanted a diverse participant group for the focus groups (phase three). As the second focus group was arranged at short notice (three weeks before it started): only three participants from two different regions attended. Therefore, information bias may have influenced the results. To correct for information bias, the conclusions from the focus groups were member checked. We also tested for coding accuracy by carrying out spot checks (AG) on the analyzed data. Table 5 illustrates all strategies that were applied to establish trustworthiness and rigor of our findings; these were categorized according to Lincoln and Guba’s four-dimension criteria framework [44]. All participants were actively involved in an AGCH pioneer site. Since SS, AV and EK are coordinators of the the pioneer sites program, they already had relationships with most participants. We believe that these prior relationships positively encouraged participants to share their experiences. Moreover, all participants worked for organizations at the forefront of moving care from the hospital to the community. Therefore, we believe we captured those developments that influence target group boundaries between care models. This study also reformulated ten categories that healthcare professionals consider beyond the formal admission criteria when deciding where to admit older adults for intermediate care. We renamed two and added two clinical consideration categories to de Groot et al.’s framework [32] and formulated three organizational categories (micro-, meso-, and macro-level factors) (see Table 4). These 10 categories for consideration (or ‘triage factors’ as defined in Groot et al.’s framework) can be used as a conceptual framework for further research. Finally, we have ensured relevance and transferability of our findings to systems outside the Netherlands by providing a rich descriptions of the case vignette method, the intermediate care models, and the national context in which they are implemented (see supplementary file 1).Table 5 Key four-dimension criteria strategies adapted from Lincoln and Guba [44]

Rigor criteria	Purpose	Strategies applied	
Credibility	To establish confidence that the results (from the perspective of the participants) are true, credible, and believable	We ensured that the researchers had the required knowledge and research skills (e.g., medical knowledge) to perform their roles

Member check of the AGCH admission criteria by focus group participants

	
Dependability	To ensure the findings of this qualitative inquiry are repeatable if the inquiry occurred within the same cohort of participants, coders, and context.	We developed a track record of the data collection process

Rich description of the study and the target refinement procedure (with the use of a flow diagram)

We tested for coding accuracy by spot checks (AG)

	
Confirmability	To extend the confidence that the results would be confirmed or corroborated by other researchers.	We applied several triangulation techniques (methodological, data source, investigators, and theoretical)

EK and SM implemented reflexive meetings after phase 2 and 3

EK and AG implemented reflexive meetings after the additional data analysis

	
Transferability	To extend the degree to which the results can be generalized or transferred to other contexts or settings.	Purposeful sampling of study participants

We defined data saturation when the boundary questions were clarified for the participants and researchers

	

Conclusion

This case vignette study defined the boundaries between target groups of the AGCH, (geriatric) hospital care, and other bed-based intermediate care models in the Netherlands and refined the AGCH admission criteria. These criteria can help determine necessary competencies for the interdisciplinary AGCH team. The findings also provide more guidance for appropriate triage and can support the development of a triage instrument. However, additional research on the boundary between STRC and GR is needed to develop a comprehensive ‘intermediate care triage tool’ for (Dutch) referral decision-makers. This tool should also consider that referral decision-making is not just a matter of ‘checking off’ admission criteria but (also) involves clinical and organizational considerations. The consideration themes identified can be used as conceptual framework in further research. The findings of this study may as well be of interest for healthcare systems outside the Netherlands who aspire to design integrated care for older people closer to home.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.Supplementary file1 (PDF 231 KB)

Supplementary file2 (PDF 362 KB)

Supplementary file3 (PDF 244 KB)

Supplementary file4 (PDF 3055 KB)

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41999-024-00947-6.

Acknowledgements

We thank the members of the Learning Network Acute Care for Older People for their valuable contribution, either by participating in this study themselves or by bringing us in contact with (potential) participants for this study.

Author contribution

All authors contributed substantially to this article. EDK, SMS, AJAHV and BM contributed to the outline of the research. EDK and SMS collected the data. EDK, SMS and AJG contributed to the analysis of the data. EDK drafted the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript and approved the final version of this manuscript. All authors meet the criteria for authorship stated in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.

Funding

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Data availability

The data generated and analyzed during this study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Ethical approval

This study procedures were reviewed and approved by the Amsterdam University Medical Centre’s Medical Ethics Research Committee (file number 2023.0477). The study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Buurman BM Han L Murphy TE Trajectories of Disability Among Older Persons Before and After a Hospitalization Leading to a Skilled Nursing Facility Admission J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2016 17 3 225 231 10.1016/j.jamda.2015.10.010 26620073
Buurman BM, Han L, Murphy TE et al (2016) Trajectories of Disability Among Older Persons Before and After a Hospitalization Leading to a Skilled Nursing Facility Admission. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 17(3):225–231. 10.1016/j.jamda.2015.10.01026620073 10.1016/j.jamda.2015.10.010
2. Boyd CM Landefeld CS Counsell SR Recovery of activities of daily living in older adults after hospitalization for acute medical illness J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008 56 12 2171 2179 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02023.x 19093915
Boyd CM, Landefeld CS, Counsell SR et al (2008) Recovery of activities of daily living in older adults after hospitalization for acute medical illness. J Am Geriatr Soc. 56(12):2171–2179. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02023.x19093915 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02023.x
3. Kansagara D Englander H Salanitro A Risk Prediction Models for Hospital Readmission A Syst Rev. Jama. 2011 306 15 1688 1698 10.1001/jama.2011.1515
Kansagara D, Englander H, Salanitro A et al (2011) Risk Prediction Models for Hospital Readmission. A Syst Rev. Jama. 306(15):1688–1698. 10.1001/jama.2011.151510.1001/jama.2011.1515
4. Naylor MD Brooten D Campbell R Comprehensive discharge planning and home follow-up of hospitalized elders: a randomized clinical trial Jama. 1999 281 7 613 620 10.1001/jama.281.7.613 10029122
Naylor MD, Brooten D, Campbell R et al (1999) Comprehensive discharge planning and home follow-up of hospitalized elders: a randomized clinical trial. Jama. 281(7):613–620. 10.1001/jama.281.7.61310029122 10.1001/jama.281.7.613
5. Fogg C Griffiths P Meredith P Hospital outcomes of older people with cognitive impairment: an integrative review Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2018 33 9 1177 1197 10.1002/gps.4919 29947150
Fogg C, Griffiths P, Meredith P et al (2018) Hospital outcomes of older people with cognitive impairment: an integrative review. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 33(9):1177–1197. 10.1002/gps.491929947150 10.1002/gps.4919
6. Van Seben R Reichardt LA Aarden J Geriatric syndromes from admission to 3 months post-discharge and their association with recovery Innov Aging. 2017 1 902 903 10.1093/geroni/igx004.3234
Van Seben R, Reichardt LA, Aarden J et al (2017) Geriatric syndromes from admission to 3 months post-discharge and their association with recovery. Innov Aging. 1:902–903. 10.1093/geroni/igx004.323410.1093/geroni/igx004.3234
7. van den Besselaar JH (2022) Crises in care for older adults: Implementation and evaluation of intermediate care and SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention. ISBN:9789493270916 Available from: https://bit.ly/3LYtdtr
8. Young J Green J Forster A Postacute care for older people in community hospitals: a multicenter randomized, controlled trial J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007 55 12 1995 2002 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01456.x 17979957
Young J, Green J, Forster A et al (2007) Postacute care for older people in community hospitals: a multicenter randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 55(12):1995–2002. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01456.x17979957 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01456.x
9. Abrahamsen JF Haugland C Nilsen RM Three different outcomes in older community-dwelling patients receiving intermediate care in nursing home after acute hospitalization J Nutr Health Aging 2016 10.1007/s12603-015-0592-y 26999246
Abrahamsen JF, Haugland C, Nilsen RM et al (2016) Three different outcomes in older community-dwelling patients receiving intermediate care in nursing home after acute hospitalization. J Nutr Health Aging. 10.1007/s12603-015-0592-y26999246 10.1007/s12603-015-0592-y
10. Inzitari M Gual N Roig T Geriatric screening tools to select older adults susceptible for direct transfer from the emergency department to subacute intermediate-care hospitalization J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015 16 10 837 841 10.1016/j.jamda.2015.04.2009 26027719
Inzitari M, Gual N, Roig T et al (2015) Geriatric screening tools to select older adults susceptible for direct transfer from the emergency department to subacute intermediate-care hospitalization. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 16(10):837–841. 10.1016/j.jamda.2015.04.200926027719 10.1016/j.jamda.2015.04.2009
11. Pearson M Hunt H Cooper C Providing effective and preferred care closer to home: a realist review of intermediate care Health Soc Care Commun. 2015 23 6 577 593 10.1111/hsc.12183
Pearson M, Hunt H, Cooper C et al (2015) Providing effective and preferred care closer to home: a realist review of intermediate care. Health Soc Care Commun. 23(6):577–593. 10.1111/hsc.1218310.1111/hsc.12183
12. Sezgin D O’Caoimh R O’Donovan MR Defining the characteristics of intermediate care models including transitional care: an international Delphi study Aging Clin Exp Res. 2020 32 11 2399 2410 10.1007/s40520-020-01579-z 32430887
Sezgin D, O’Caoimh R, O’Donovan MR et al (2020) Defining the characteristics of intermediate care models including transitional care: an international Delphi study. Aging Clin Exp Res. 32(11):2399–2410. 10.1007/s40520-020-01579-z32430887 10.1007/s40520-020-01579-z
13. Colprim D Martin R Parer M Direct admission to intermediate care for older adults with reactivated chronic diseases as an alternative to conventional hospitalization J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013 14 4 300 302 10.1016/j.jamda.2012.12.003 23294969
Colprim D, Martin R, Parer M et al (2013) Direct admission to intermediate care for older adults with reactivated chronic diseases as an alternative to conventional hospitalization. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 14(4):300–302. 10.1016/j.jamda.2012.12.00323294969 10.1016/j.jamda.2012.12.003
14. Ribbink ME (2022) The implementation and evaluation of an acute geriatric community hospital in the Netherlands. ISBN:9789083252230 Available from: https://bit.ly/417FKPp
15. Young J Gladman JR Forsyth DR The second national audit of intermediate care Age Ageing. 2015 44 2 182 184 10.1093/ageing/afu174 25377746
Young J, Gladman JR, Forsyth DR et al (2015) The second national audit of intermediate care. Age Ageing. 44(2):182–184. 10.1093/ageing/afu17425377746 10.1093/ageing/afu174
16. Davidson D Paine AE Glasby J Analysis of the profile characteristics patient experience and community value of community hospitals a multimethod study Health Serv Res 2019 10.3310/hsdr07010
Davidson D, Paine AE, Glasby J et al (2019) Analysis of the profile characteristics patient experience and community value of community hospitals a multimethod study. Health Serv Res. 10.3310/hsdr0701010.3310/hsdr07010
17. Young J Hulme C Smith A Measuring and optimising the efficiency of community hospital inpatient care for older people the MoCHA mixed-methods study Health Serv Deliv Res 2020 10.3310/hsdr08010
Young J, Hulme C, Smith A et al (2020) Measuring and optimising the efficiency of community hospital inpatient care for older people the MoCHA mixed-methods study. Health Serv Deliv Res. 10.3310/hsdr0801010.3310/hsdr08010
18. Conley J O’Brien CW Leff BA Alternative strategies to inpatient hospitalization for acute medical conditions: a systematic review JAMA Intern. Med. 2016 176 11 1693 1702 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5974 27695822
Conley J, O’Brien CW, Leff BA et al (2016) Alternative strategies to inpatient hospitalization for acute medical conditions: a systematic review. JAMA Intern. Med. 176(11):1693–1702. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.597427695822 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5974
19. Shepperd S Iliffe S Doll HA Admission avoidance hospital at home Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016 10.1002/14651858.CD007491.pub2 27583824
Shepperd S, Iliffe S, Doll HA et al (2016) Admission avoidance hospital at home. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 10.1002/14651858.CD007491.pub227583824 10.1002/14651858.CD007491.pub2
20. Loyd C Blue K Turner L National Norms for Hospitalizations Due to Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions among Adults in the US J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2023 10.1007/s11606-023-08161-z 36941421
Loyd C, Blue K, Turner L et al (2023) National Norms for Hospitalizations Due to Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions among Adults in the US. J Gen Intern Med. 10.1007/s11606-023-08161-z36941421 10.1007/s11606-023-08161-z
21. Ribbink ME Gual N MacNeil-Vroomen JL Two European examples of acute geriatric units located outside of a general hospital for older adults with exacerbated chronic conditions J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021 22 6 1228 34 10.1016/j.jamda.2020.12.034 33524341
Ribbink ME, Gual N, MacNeil-Vroomen JL et al (2021) Two European examples of acute geriatric units located outside of a general hospital for older adults with exacerbated chronic conditions. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 22(6):1228–34. 10.1016/j.jamda.2020.12.03433524341 10.1016/j.jamda.2020.12.034
22. Lappegard Ø Hjortdahl P Perceived quality of an alternative to acute hospitalization: an analytical study at a community hospital in Hallingdal Norway. Soc. Sci. Med. 2014 119 27 35 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.08.014 25137645
Lappegard Ø, Hjortdahl P (2014) Perceived quality of an alternative to acute hospitalization: an analytical study at a community hospital in Hallingdal. Norway. Soc. Sci. Med. 119:27–35. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.08.01425137645 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.08.014
23. Hedman M Boman K Brännström M Clinical profile of rural community hospital inpatients in Sweden–a register study Scand. J. Prim. 2021 39 1 92 100 10.1080/02813432.2021.1882086
Hedman M, Boman K, Brännström M et al (2021) Clinical profile of rural community hospital inpatients in Sweden–a register study. Scand. J. Prim. 39(1):92–100. 10.1080/02813432.2021.188208610.1080/02813432.2021.1882086
24. Ribbink ME MacNeil Vroomen JL Franssen R Investigating the effectiveness of care delivery at an acute geriatric community hospital for older adults in the Netherlands a prospective controlled observational study Res Square 2023 56 2171 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3286370/v1
Ribbink ME, MacNeil Vroomen JL, Franssen R et al (2023) Investigating the effectiveness of care delivery at an acute geriatric community hospital for older adults in the Netherlands a prospective controlled observational study. Res Square 56:2171. 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3286370/v110.21203/rs.3.rs-3286370/v1
25. Ribbink ME Roozendaal CC MacNeil-Vroomen JL Patient experience and satisfaction with admission to an acute geriatric community hospital in the Netherlands: a mixed method study J. Integr. Care. 2021 29 4 390 402 10.1108/JICA-04-2021-0018
Ribbink ME, Roozendaal CC, MacNeil-Vroomen JL et al (2021) Patient experience and satisfaction with admission to an acute geriatric community hospital in the Netherlands: a mixed method study. J. Integr. Care. 29(4):390–402. 10.1108/JICA-04-2021-001810.1108/JICA-04-2021-0018
26. Ribbink ME Stornebrink E Franssen R The incidence of delirium in an acute geriatric community hospital: an observational cohort feasibility study medRxiv 2021 10.1101/2021.05.31.21257974
Ribbink ME, Stornebrink E, Franssen R et al (2021) The incidence of delirium in an acute geriatric community hospital: an observational cohort feasibility study. medRxiv. 10.1101/2021.05.31.2125797410.1101/2021.05.31.21257974
27. Ribbink ME de Vries-Mols WCBM MacNeil Vroomen JL Facilitators and barriers to implementing an acute geriatric community hospital in the Netherlands: a qualitative study Age Ageing. 2023 52 1 afac206 10.1093/ageing/afac206 36729468
Ribbink ME, de Vries-Mols WCBM, MacNeil Vroomen JL et al (2023) Facilitators and barriers to implementing an acute geriatric community hospital in the Netherlands: a qualitative study. Age Ageing. 52(1):afac206. 10.1093/ageing/afac20636729468 10.1093/ageing/afac206
28. Maarse JAMH Jeurissen PPP The policy and politics of the 2015 long-term care reform in the Netherlands Health Policy. 2016 120 3 241 245 10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.01.014 26872702
Maarse JAMH, Jeurissen PPP (2016) The policy and politics of the 2015 long-term care reform in the Netherlands. Health Policy. 120(3):241–245. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.01.01426872702 10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.01.014
29. Bachmann LM Muhleisen A Bock A Vignette studies of medical choice and judgement to study caregivers’ medical decision behaviour systematic review BMC Med Res Methodol 2008 10.1186/1471-2288-8-50 18664302
Bachmann LM, Muhleisen A, Bock A et al (2008) Vignette studies of medical choice and judgement to study caregivers’ medical decision behaviour systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 10.1186/1471-2288-8-5018664302 10.1186/1471-2288-8-50
30. Veloski J Tai S Evans AS Clinical vignette-based surveys: a tool for assessing physician practice variation Am J Med Qual. 2005 20 3 151 157 10.1177/1062860605274520 15951521
Veloski J, Tai S, Evans AS et al (2005) Clinical vignette-based surveys: a tool for assessing physician practice variation. Am J Med Qual. 20(3):151–157. 10.1177/106286060527452015951521 10.1177/1062860605274520
31. Tong A Sainsbury P Craig J Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups Int J Qual Health Care 2007 19 6 349 357 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 17872937
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J (2007) Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 19(6):349–357. 10.1093/intqhc/mzm04217872937 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
32. de Groot AJ Wattel EM van Dam CS Referral to geriatric rehabilitation: a scoping review of triage factors in acutely hospitalised older patients Age Ageing 2022 10.1093/ageing/afac015 35150588
de Groot AJ, Wattel EM, van Dam CS et al (2022) Referral to geriatric rehabilitation: a scoping review of triage factors in acutely hospitalised older patients. Age Ageing. 10.1093/ageing/afac01535150588 10.1093/ageing/afac015
33. Lovink MH van Vught A Persoon A Skill mix change between physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and nurses in nursing homes: A qualitative study Nurs Health Sci. 2019 21 3 282 290 10.1111/nhs.12601 30932288
Lovink MH, van Vught A, Persoon A et al (2019) Skill mix change between physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and nurses in nursing homes: A qualitative study. Nurs Health Sci. 21(3):282–290. 10.1111/nhs.1260130932288 10.1111/nhs.12601
34. Vektis. Ligduur eerstelijnsverblijf loop terug en uitstroom naar huis neemt toe. http://bit.ly/45soRlc Accessed on August 16, 2023. [in Dutch]
35. Vektis. Factsheet geriatrische revalidatiezorg. https://bit.ly/47yRKhq Accessed on August 16, 2023. [in Dutch]
36. Meyer AM Becker I Siri G New assocations of the Multidimensional Prognostic Index Z Gerontol Geriat 2019 10.1007/s00391-018-01471-6
Meyer AM, Becker I, Siri G et al (2019) New assocations of the Multidimensional Prognostic Index. Z Gerontol Geriat. 10.1007/s00391-018-01471-610.1007/s00391-018-01471-6
37. Jupp BJ Mallela SK Kwan J Development and evaluation of the GEMS (gait, eyesights, mental state, sedation) tool as an aid to predict outcome after hospitalization Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2011 11 1 8 15 10.1111/j.1447-0594.2010.00626.x 20546025
Jupp BJ, Mallela SK, Kwan J et al (2011) Development and evaluation of the GEMS (gait, eyesights, mental state, sedation) tool as an aid to predict outcome after hospitalization. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 11(1):8–15. 10.1111/j.1447-0594.2010.00626.x20546025 10.1111/j.1447-0594.2010.00626.x
38. Buntin MB Access to postacute rehabilitation Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 88 11 1488 1493 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.07.023 17964894
Buntin MB (2007) Access to postacute rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 88(11):1488–1493. 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.07.02317964894 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.07.023
39. Ayele R Jones J Ladebue A Perceived costs of care influence post-acute care choices by clinicians, patients, and caregivers J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019 67 4 703 710 10.1111/jgs.15768 30707766
Ayele R, Jones J, Ladebue A et al (2019) Perceived costs of care influence post-acute care choices by clinicians, patients, and caregivers. J Am Geriatr Soc. 67(4):703–710. 10.1111/jgs.1576830707766 10.1111/jgs.15768
40. Buntin MB Garten AD Paddock S How much is postacute care use affected by its availability? Health Serv Res. 2005 40 2 413 34 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.0i366.x 15762900
Buntin MB, Garten AD, Paddock S et al (2005) How much is postacute care use affected by its availability? Health Serv Res. 40(2):413–34. 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.0i366.x15762900 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.0i366.x
41. Bouwstra H Wattel LM de Groot AJ The influence of activity-based funding on treatment intensity and length of stay of geriatric rehabilitation patients J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017 18 6 549e.15 549e.22 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.02.003
Bouwstra H, Wattel LM, de Groot AJ et al (2017) The influence of activity-based funding on treatment intensity and length of stay of geriatric rehabilitation patients. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 18(6):549e.15-549e.22. 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.02.00310.1016/j.jamda.2017.02.003
42. Buntin MB Colla CH Escarce JJ Effects of payment changes on trends in post-acute care Health Serv Res. 2009 44 4 1188 1210 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00968.x 19490159
Buntin MB, Colla CH, Escarce JJ (2009) Effects of payment changes on trends in post-acute care. Health Serv Res. 44(4):1188–1210. 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00968.x19490159 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00968.x
43. Finch H Lewis J Turley C Focus groups Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers 2003 1 London SAGE
Finch H, Lewis J, Turley C (2003) Focus groups. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, 1st edn. SAGE, London
44. Lincoln YS Guba EG But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation New Dir Progr Eval. 1986 30 73 84 10.1002/ev.1427
Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1986) But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Dir Progr Eval. 30:73–84. 10.1002/ev.142710.1002/ev.1427
45. Achterberg WP Cameron ID Bauer JM Geriatric Rehabilitation-State of the Art and Future Priorities J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2019 20 4 396 398 10.1016/j.jamda.2019.02.014 30954132
Achterberg WP, Cameron ID, Bauer JM et al (2019) Geriatric Rehabilitation-State of the Art and Future Priorities. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 20(4):396–398. 10.1016/j.jamda.2019.02.01430954132 10.1016/j.jamda.2019.02.014
46. Grund S Gordon AL van Balen R European consensus on core principles and future priorities for geriatric rehabilitation: consensus statement Eur Geriatr Med. 2020 11 2 233 238 10.1002/mrd.1120210103 32297191
Grund S, Gordon AL, van Balen R et al (2020) European consensus on core principles and future priorities for geriatric rehabilitation: consensus statement. Eur Geriatr Med. 11(2):233–238. 10.1002/mrd.112021010332297191 10.1002/mrd.1120210103
47. Zorginstituut Nederland. Geriatrische revalidatiezorg in de Zvw. Artikel 2.5c Bzv: 'to be or not to be?' 2021 Nov 23. Available from: https://bit.ly/418o5ao [in Dutch]
