Skip to main content
Download PDF

Quality of care transition, patient safety incidents, and patients’ health status: a structural equation model on the complexity of the discharge process

BMC Health Services Research volume 24, Article number: 576 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The transition of patients between care contexts poses patient safety risks. Discharges to home from inpatient care can be associated with adverse patient outcomes. Quality in discharge processes is essential in ensuring safe transitions for patients. Current evidence relies on bivariate analyses and neglects contextual factors such as treatment and patient characteristics and the interactions of potential outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the associations between the quality and safety of the discharge process, patient safety incidents, and health-related outcomes after discharge, considering the treatments’ and patients’ contextual factors in one comprehensive model.

Methods

Patients at least 18 years old and discharged home after at least three days of inpatient treatment received a self-report questionnaire. A total of N = 825 patients participated. The assessment contained items to assess the quality and safety of the discharge process from the patient’s perspective with the care transitions measure (CTM), a self-report on the incidence of unplanned readmissions and medication complications, health status, and sociodemographic and treatment-related characteristics. Statistical analyses included structural equation modeling (SEM) and additional analyses using logistic regressions.

Results

Higher quality of care transition was related to a lower incidence of medication complications (B = -0.35, p < 0.01) and better health status (B = 0.74, p < 0.001), but not with lower incidence of readmissions (B = -0.01, p = 0.39). These effects were controlled for the influences of various sociodemographic and treatment-related characteristics in SEM. Additional analyses showed that these associations were only constant when all subscales of the CTM were included.

Conclusions

Quality and safety in the discharge process are critical to safe patient transitions to home care. This study contributes to a better understanding of the complex discharge process by applying a model in which various contextual factors and interactions were considered. The findings revealed that high quality discharge processes are associated with a lower likelihood of patient safety incidents and better health status at home even, when sociodemographic and treatment-related characteristics are taken into account. This study supports the call for developing individualized, patient-centered discharge processes to strengthen patient safety in care transitions.

Peer Review reports

Background

Healthcare transitions, such as patient transfers from hospital to home or from one care setting to another, are high-risk processes in terms of patient safety [1,2,3]. The World Health Organization (WHO) highlighted the importance of safe care transitions in its Patient Safety Action Plan 2021–2030 as one major goal of eliminating avoidable healthcare harm [4].

Particularly, patient care transitions from in-hospital to outpatient or at-home treatment are associated with high risks of adverse events, such as medication complications or nosocomial infections affecting approximately 20% of all inpatients [5,6,7,8]. Previous research showed that unplanned hospital readmissions and medication errors were more likely after poor care transitions [5, 9,10,11,12]. Moreover, patients reported better health status after effective care transitions [13,14,15]. One key to safe care transitions is good patient-centered communication between providers and patients during the discharge process [16, 17]. High quality discharge is characterized by different patient-centered actions, like including patients in their post-discharge care planning, supporting patients’ understanding of care needs and medications, and providing individual written care plans [13, 18, 19].

Although the research base on safe discharge practices is growing, there is still a need for a more profound and comprehensive understanding of the interplay between quality of care transitions, patient safety incidents, and patients’ health outcomes. The existing evidence is limited regarding external validity since it is primarily based on surveyed samples with restrictions on specific diseases or clinical specialties [15, 20], or patients’ characteristics like age and gender [13, 14, 21]. To the best of our knowledge, previous studies have mainly examined bivariate relationships, failing to account for the complexity of discharge processes. However, previous research indicated that the occurrence of safety incidents and patient’s health status at home after hospital discharge is affected by sociodemographic variables like age [22, 23] and gender [22,23,24,25]. Further, poorer health outcomes after discharge are related to treatment-related variables like the length of hospital stay [22, 23] and the need for intensive medical care, also referred to as the post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) [26]. Taken together, research shows that the quality of the discharge process has a significant influence on the occurrence of patient safety incidents and the health status of patients after discharge to home. In addition, sociodemographic and treatment-related variables were identified as relevant determinants of these outcomes after the discharge process. However, there is a lack of research to date in which the quality of care transition has been considered together with these relevant factors in one comprehensive approach. Therefore, it was our aim to consider these potential factors in one comprehensive model when examining the relationship between the quality of care transition and safety outcomes and health status. For this purpose, we applied a structural equation model (SEM) approach to investigate the complex interrelations in the discharge process and ensuing outcomes of care transitions from hospital to home. Our study thus contributes to the current evidence particularly in two ways:

First, by modeling the quality of care transition and potential outcomes in one comprehensive SEM, latent factors (versus manifest means) are included taking into account measurement errors and estimating robust, true construct variances [27]. This approach strengthens internal validity in investigating potential connections between care transitions and outcomes. This is particularly relevant because there is a need to understand how the complex discharge process affects various outcomes, such as adverse patient safety events at home and patients’ health status, taking into account other variables (e.g., patient sociodemographic and treatment characteristics). To validly represent these complex interactions, modeling all these variables in one comprehensive model, such as an SEM, is necessary [28].

Second, to overcome the limitations of previous studies regarding generalizability, data were obtained from various clinical areas and departments from patients with different diagnoses and diseases involved. Our study sample included patients from all departments of an academic teaching hospital (except pediatrics) to capture a heterogeneous sample in terms of patient and treatment characteristics. In addition, the sample sizes in many previous studies were small [13, 29, 30], so a large sample was generated in this study as a sound foundation for valid results. In addition to assessing health-related outcomes, we also included patient safety incidents after discharge to home in this study as patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). In order to strengthen external validity, we have furthermore used the Care Transitions Measure (CTM), which has been shown to be the most widely used patient-reported experience measure (PREM) to assess the quality of care transition [31].

To this end and to obtain a deep and comprehensive understanding of the complexity of discharge processes and ensuing safety and health-related outcomes, we established the following hypotheses. We examined the relationships between quality of care transition, patient safety incidents, and health outcomes under consideration of sociodemographic and treatment-related characteristics in one comprehensive multivariate analysis using an SEM approach:

  • H1: Higher quality of care transition is associated with a lower likelihood of unplanned hospital readmissions,

  • H2: Higher quality of care transition is associated with a lower likelihood of experiencing medication complications,

  • H3: Higher quality of care transition is associated with better patient-reported health outcomes (physical and mental health status).

Furthermore, we wanted to examine relationships between the occurrence of patient safety incidents and patients’ health status. Figure 1 shows our study’s conceptual model between the quality of care transition, patient safety outcomes, and patients’ health status.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Conceptual model of quality of care transition during hospital discharge, patient safety, and health outcomes

Full size image

Methods

Study setting and design

We conducted a hospital-wide cross-sectional study with patients surveyed after discharge from inpatient care. Data were collected via self-report questionnaires at an academic teaching hospital in Germany with maximum care in approximately 60 clinics and departments. The hospital provides care to around 350,000 outpatients and about 90,000 inpatients or emergency patients annually.

This study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki. The Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Bonn approved the study protocol (Nr. 107/22). The study protocol was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS; Nr. DRKS00028947). The study results are reported according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines [32].

Participants

Inclusion criteria were patients at least 18 years old, discharged to home; inpatient treatment for at least three days. Consistently, patients from pediatric units were not included in this study. Altogether, 825 patients participated (response rate: 21%). Before analyses, we performed a data quality check. Ten cases were excluded as these patients indicated in a text field of the questionnaire that they were not at home after discharge. Further, we excluded eight questionnaires as they were returned later than two months. This was necessary to ensure that all patients interviewed reported about a similar period of time after hospitalization. The resulting final sample was 807 patient questionnaires. Of these, 666 (83%) patients completed the paper-pencil version and 141 via the online version. We performed a post hoc sample size calculation using WebPower [33]. Based on the finally tested model, we defined the following parameters: df = 198; effect size = 0.1; significance level = 0.05; and statistical power = 0.95. With these parameters, a sample size of n = 760 was needed to find significant effects. We could therefore assume that our sample size was sufficient.

Data collection procedure

Patient addresses were generated via hospital administration records between May and August 2022. 3945 Patients received the paper-pencil questionnaire via mail about three weeks after hospital discharge. A stamped envelope was enclosed so that the questionnaire could be returned free of charge. Patients were given the opportunity to take part via an equivalent online version of the assessment via Unipark (Tivian XI GmbH), which was accessible via an URL or QR-Code printed in the paper-pencil questionnaire. There was no compensation for study participation. The assessment was designed to be anonymous, and participation was voluntary. The paper-pencil, as well as the online version of the assessment, included a comprehensive study disclosure and contact information for inquiries. In case patients were not able to participate, the questionnaire included the option to be filled in by relatives instead. Responses in both, online and paper-pencil version of the survey were continuously checked during the course of the study in order to recognize potential misunderstandings and ambiguities in answering the items. A free text field was provided at the end of the questionnaire for this purpose, but no misunderstandings were documented. The questionnaire data for the paper-pencil version were entered manually and randomly checked for correctness by the first author of the study.

Measurements

Quality of care transition

The Care Transition Measure ([CTM] 19) was applied as the internationally most used assessment tool for quality of care transition [31]. A validation study regarding the German version of the CTM was previously conducted [34]. The questionnaire included 15 items measuring the quality of care transition on four dimensions (i.e., subscales): (a) Critical understanding assessed whether patients received an understanding of their own care responsibilities as well as insights into their medication and possible side effects (six items). (b) Management preparations represented the extent to which patients obtained an understanding of how to manage their health situation and knowledge about individual health-related red flags to which attention should be paid (four items). (c) Care plan measured whether patients received written plans of upcoming appointments and tests as well as plans regarding their own health care at home (2 items). (d) Preferences important was used to determine the extent to which patients and their caregivers were involved in decisions about their care after being discharged (3 items) [18, 19]. All items were answered on a 4-Point Likert Scale from 1 = ‘Strongly Disagree’ to 4 = ‘Strongly Agree’. A fifth response option was ‘Don’t Know/Don’t Remember/Not Applicable’, which was treated as missing values in the analyses.

Patient safety incidents and health assessment

As study outcomes, we assessed patient safety incidents as whether (1) patients experienced an unplanned need to attend a hospital or an emergency department, and (2) medication complications after their discharge from inpatient treatment by dichotomous items (no readmission / no medication complications, need of readmission / experience of medication complications). As there is no validated instrument for measuring patient safety incidents yet, these items were self-developed based on common adverse events after discharge [35] and have been successfully used in a previous study [36].

Further, we asked patients about their current physical (‘How do you rate your physical health (e.g., no physical limitations, pain)?’) and mental health (‘How do you rate your mental health (e.g., no feelings of anxiety, feeling depressed)?’) status on an 11-Point Likert Scale from 1 = ‘Very bad health’ to 11 = ‘Very good health’. These items were validly used in previous studies [37, 38].

Sociodemographic and treatment-related characteristics

Additionally, we assessed patients’ sociodemographic characteristics: age (in years) and gender (female, male, diverse). Further, treatment-related characteristics were assessed: length of hospital stay (in days); patients undergoing intensive medical care (yes, no).

The study items are presented in Appendix 1 in the Supplementary Material.

Statistical analysis

In the first step, descriptive analyses of study variables were conducted. T-tests and bivariate correlations were used to examine potential group and subscale differences. Cronbach Alpha (CA) was used to estimate scale reliabilities of first-order factors, and McDonald’s Omega for second-order factors.

In the second step, we established an SEM on the proposed model shown in Fig. 1. Considering that we included categorical and numerical data in the modeling process, we used the robust weighted least square mean and variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimator for model estimation [39, 40]. To account for potential confounding variables, associations between sociodemographic, treatment-related characteristics, and study outcomes were examined prior to modeling. The SEM included characteristics with significant relations to study outcomes as covariates. The measurement model part of the SEM consisted of quality of care transition as constructed by the original authors’ proposed model of the CTM [19]: four subscales with a total of 15 items loaded on one common higher-level factor. Moreover, two items assessing the physical and mental health status constituted the latent factor of health status.

Within the structural part of the SEM, unplanned hospital readmissions, medication complications (patient safety incidents), and health status were regressed on the common factor of the quality of care transition. Moreover, we estimated the relationship between unplanned hospital readmissions and medication complications as well as the correlations between health status and both patient safety incidents.

Model parameters were evaluated using comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), root mean square residual (SRMR), and item factor loadings in consideration of the model fit criteria proposed by Hu & Bentler [41]. Therefore, the following criteria were considered to indicate good model fit: CFI ≥ 0.95, TLI ≥ 0.95, RMSEA ≤ 0.06, and SRMR ≤ 0.08. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant in all analyses. Additional analyses aiming to gain a deeper understanding of CTM’s (sub-)scale effects on the study outcomes used logistic regression analyses. R and RStudio were used for data analyses [42, 43].

Results

Sample description

The study sample comprised 383 female patients (48%), 400 male patients (50%), and three persons who indicated their gender as diverse. Mean age was 60.8 years (SD = 18.0; Median = 64; Range = 19 to 94 years). Eighty questionnaires (68 paper-pencil, 12 online) were filled out by relatives (10%). Patients who used the online questionnaire were significantly younger than patients who returned paper-pencil questionnaires (M = 51.6 years vs. 62.6, respectively; t = 6.53, p < 0.001). On average, patients reported a duration of 10.1 days of inpatient stay in the hospital (SD = 16.3; Median = 5, Range 3 to 165 days). Of all patients, 206 (26%) received intensive medical care.

Analyses for prevalence and associations with potential control variables

The CTM (range 1 to 4) had a mean score of 3.08 (SD = 0.77) and a reliability (McDonald’s Omega) of 0.93, indicating excellent internal consistency. CTM’s four subscales had the following means: preferences important: Mean = 3.09, SD = 0.94; management preparations: Mean = 3.15, SD = 0.86; care plan: Mean = 2.87, SD = 1.00; critical understanding: Mean = 3.09, SD = 0.79 with reliabilities of 0.92, 0.92, 0.68, and 0.91, respectively. All subscales reflect high levels of perceived quality of care transition. Yet, pairwise t-tests with adjusted p-values (holm-method) indicated that the CTM subscale care plan was significantly lower. Results are shown in Appendix 2 in the Supplementary Material.

Regarding patient safety incidents outcome, 71 patients (8.8%) reported unplanned hospital readmissions after initial discharge. Furthermore, 85 patients (10.5%) experienced medication complications after discharge. Of these, 19 (2.5%) patients experienced patient safety incidents and concurrent medication complications.

Regarding patients’ health status (range 1 to 11), the mean physical health was 6.97 (SD = 2.4), and the mean mental health was 7.61 (SD = 2.7).

We examined potential bivariate associations between sociodemographic characteristics and our study outcome variables and observed that higher age was significantly related to lower physical health (r = -0.25, p < 0.001). Additionally, higher mental health was associated with a shorter duration of hospital stay (r = -0.12, p < 0.01). Moreover, patients who underwent intensive medical care reported lower physical (t718 = 3.19, p < 0.01) and lower mental health (t718 = 2.32, p < 0.05). Patients’ gender was not associated with any study outcomes. Therefore, we included intensive medical care, age, and length of hospital stay as covariates in the following multivariate analyses. Age and length of hospital stay were mean-centered before modeling.

Multivariate structural equation modeling – measurements characteristics

To gain an understanding of the complex interrelations between the quality of care transition, patient safety incidents at home, and patients’ health status, we performed an SEM analysis under consideration of the above-mentioned covariates. Figure 2 shows the model and resulting estimates (without error terms).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Structural equation model with standardized coefficients on quality of care transition, health status, and patient safety incidents. Italic numbers indicate factor loadings. Significant regressions and correlations are displayed in bold with * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

Full size image

As shown in Fig. 2, the quality of care transition was validly assessed by four subscales: preferences important, management preparation, care plan, and critical understanding. All items had high significant factor loadings (all λ >= 0.57) on their respective subscale, corroborating the factorial validity of the CTM tool. The patients’ health status was validly measured (all factor loadings λ >= 0.69) by two items assessing physical and mental health with an acceptable reliability of 0.73. Model fit parameters were good with CFI = 0.937, TLI = 0.926, RMSEA = 0.032, and SRMR = 0.060.

Multivariate associations and hypotheses testing

Concerning our first hypothesis, we found that the likelihood of unplanned hospital readmissions was unrelated to the overall quality of care transition (B = -0.01, β = -0.08, p = 0.39). Consequently, our first hypothesis was rejected.

Our second hypothesis proposed that higher quality of care transition is associated with a lower likelihood of medication complications. Hypothesis 2 was empirically confirmed by our model: B = -0.35, β = -0.26, p < 0.01.

Concerning our Hypothesis 3, a high, positive association between quality of care transition and patients’ overall health status was observed (B = 0.74, β = 0.36, p < 0.001).

Furthermore, lower health status was significantly related to increased reports of medication complications (r = -0.21, p < 0.05), but not with a lower likelihood of unplanned hospital readmissions (r = -0.19, p = 0.08). After multivariate adjustment, we identified a significant association between the likelihood of medication complications and unplanned hospital readmissions (r = 0.35, p < 0.01).

Additional analyses on CTM subscales and study outcomes

To better understand which aspects of the care transition (i.e., respective CTM subscale) contributed to improved health status and a lower likelihood of medication complications, we subsequently established another SEM with CTM subscales as individual predictors. Covariates age, intensive medical care, and length of stay were consistently used as in the previous model (cf., Fig. 2). In this expanded model, none of the four CTM subscales significantly predicted the occurrence of medication complications or patients’ health status. Since we further assumed that a positive effect of quality of care transition only occurs when all aspects (subscales) of a safe discharge process act together, we used, moreover, regression analyses to estimate associations between CTM’s total mean score and our study outcomes. The likelihood of medication complications was significantly predicted by the CTM total mean score: B = − 0.67, Odds ratio = 0.51 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39–0.68), p < 0.001. Likewise, the health status depended on the CTM total mean score (B = 0.84 [CI: 0.64–1.04], β = 0.28, p < 0.001).

Discussion

Principal findings

Although patient’s discharge processes have been acknowledged as susceptible to risks and potential harm, establishing and safeguarding transitional safety remains a significant challenge in complex care systems [44]. Improving patient transition processes between different care contexts is a fundamental pillar of safe patient care [45]. Our study aimed to gain a deeper understanding of the complex interrelations between the quality of discharge processes, the likelihood of patient safety incidents at home, and the patients’ health status in one comprehensive model. Our findings contribute to existing knowledge by using a multivariate SEM approach, spanning various medical specialties within a large sample size, and considering sociodemographic and treatment-related characteristics as covariates. Moreover, by using the standardized CTM as a PREM, we advance our understanding of how patients appraise various process steps of care in the course of hospital discharge. Further, we applied PROMs to investigate patient safety incidents and patients’ health status [46]. PREMs and PROMs are key drivers of patient-centered care, and this study contributes significantly to the current research base of patients’ perspectives about the care process and outcomes by applying both patient-reported performance measures in one model [46, 47].

Regarding our first hypothesis, we expected that higher quality in care transition is associated with fewer unplanned hospital readmissions. Our empirical data did not support this assumption. However, this resonates well with previous research that is somewhat inconsistent with a heterogonous base of studies that did not find a connection between the quality of care transition and readmissions [20, 48, 49]. Post-hoc, a potential explanation could be that previous research did not consider the complex interactions of different patient safety incidents, health-related aspects, as well as sociodemographic and treatment-related characteristics. We assume that the probability of re-hospitalizations could be an outcome of medication complications rather than a direct outcome of the quality of discharge processes. This assumption is corroborated by the significant association found in our data between readmissions and medication complications, as well as previous research highlighting that medication-targeted discharge interventions are associated with fewer readmissions [50].

Referring to the second hypothesis, our analysis confirmed a significant association between higher quality in care transition processes and a lower likelihood of medication complications. This result underscores the importance of the WHO Global Patient Safety Challenge ‘Medication Without Harm’ [51] and the particular need to take medication safety in care transitions into account [52]. Previous research has shown that about 50% of patients experience medication complications (e.g., errors or unintentional medication discrepancies) after hospital discharge [8]. Most medication complications after discharge occur due to lacks in transitional care [53]. Our study thus confirms that medication safety in the discharge process plays an influential role in patient safety. Various studies have shown that interventions to improve medication safety in the discharge process, e.g., patient education, medication reconciliation, and improved communication between healthcare professionals reduce medication complications [54,55,56,57]. Our study contributes to a better understanding of the complexity and possible impact of medication complications in the context of poor quality of care transitions: medication complications are associated with a higher probability of readmission as well as with poorer patients’ health status. This finding corroborates that medication complications are probably not only the outcome of poor quality of care transition but are likely to lead to more readmissions and poorer patient health [57]. Future research should thus explore these possible mediation effects of medication complications in longitudinal studies.

Our third hypothesis expected a positive relationship between quality in care transitions and patients’ health status. Besides patients’ age, we also considered treatment-related characteristics as potential covariates and found a significantly positive relationship between the quality of care transition and patients’ health status. This finding is consistent with previous research [13,14,15]. Interestingly, however, there was no correlation between health status and readmissions, which indicates that patients rate their health worse if the quality of care transition was experienced as poor, regardless of the need for readmissions. Due to the differential association between quality of care transition, medication complications, and health-related outcomes, we assume that poor quality of care transition may have a two-fold effect: it leads to poorer health in some patients and medication complications in others. This elucidates that studies that only record patient safety incidents as outcomes overlook that many people suffer from health constraints due to poor quality of care transitions without experiencing medication complications or readmissions. This underpins the assumption that discharge is a complex process that can be associated with individual outcomes for patients and therefore requires discharge processes in which the unique needs of the patients are considered [58].

Our subsequent analyses emphasized that single aspects of safe care transitions (i.e., CTM subscales) are not predictive of patient safety nor patients’ health, but the CTM total mean score was. Our findings suggest that safe care transitions are not merely a question of single actions but a bundle of several interacting and complementary actions that collectively foster safety and patients’ health after discharge from the hospital to home [59]. This observation provides further evidence for designing improvement approaches such that multi-component programs addressing various challenges of the discharge process are more effective in reducing patient safety incidents [60].

Summarizing, the results of this study implicate that discharge is a complex process in which various sociodemographic and treatment-related characteristics impact patient outcomes. This highlights the need for future research to consider this complexity for making valid statements about this vulnerable care process, which is characterized by interactions of different systems, care, and patient influences. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to demonstrate the complexity of the discharge process and the interactions of different characteristics in studying patient experiences and outcomes in one comprehensive model. Our study findings contribute significantly to important gaps in previous research: firstly, the results of this study go beyond a mere consideration of bivariate relationships by comprehensively considering the multivariate nature and interplay of potentially influencing factors in one comprehensive SEM. Secondly, our research approach drawing upon a large and heterogeneous sample in terms of the specialties, age groups, and diagnostics, eventually enabled us to establish a high level of external validity. Our findings may inform future investigations such to not simplify the complexity of discharge processes using bivariate analyses but to account for the interactions of different characteristics, patient experiences, and patient outcomes through multivariate modeling. Furthermore, our study has shown that sociodemographic and treatment-related factors determine patient outcomes. Thus, our results support calls from other research for patient-centered and individualized discharge planning to ensure transitional patient safety [58].

Limitations

The results of our analyses must be interpreted in consideration of several limitations. We used a convenience sampling approach for data collection which may introduce a sampling bias into our data. In addition, we conducted a cross-sectional study which does not allow for causal inferences. As half of the study participants were older than 64 years, our findings may be limited to elderly patients and are likely to be not fully representative of the needs of younger patients. Another limitation is that this study used self-reported data from patients only. Nonetheless, it has been shown that patients can provide valid information about adverse events [61]. We collected data from patients treated in one academic hospital in Germany, which may limit the external validity of our results to other healthcare contexts and systems. Therefore, our findings should be replicated in multi-center studies as well as in the health systems of other countries. A further limitation is that the patient safety outcomes were assessed using single items. As no internationally validated instrument for measuring these relevant patient safety incidents is yet available, future research should take this important gap into account. Further, mixed methods studies or process evaluations via expert observations, provider reports, or similar methods might provide a more nuanced picture concerning the varying challenges in the course of hospital discharge. Lastly, although we sought to include a relevant set of sociodemographic and treatment-related characteristics to account for potential confounding influences, we acknowledge that our selection may be limited and further determinant factors may be influential.

Conclusion

High quality of care transition and patient-centeredness during discharge processes are associated with a lower likelihood of medication complications and better patients’ health status at home. These effects bear up against the influences of measurement errors and sociodemographic and treatment-related characteristics in a comprehensive SEM. Quality of care transition was not related to the likelihood of unplanned hospital readmission in our multivariate model. Our analyses propose that it is unlikely that single aspects of high quality care transitions alone yield positive effects in terms of patient safety and health-related outcomes. Moreover, the discharge process should be designed in a patient-centered and safe manner through careful consideration and composition of several complementary actions and patient-oriented measures.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Please contact the corresponding author Matthias Marsall (matthias.marsall@ukbonn.de).

Abbreviations

DRKS:

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS)

CA:

Cronbach’s alpha

CFI:

comparative fit index

CI:

confidence interval

CTM:

care transitions measure

RMSEA:

root mean square error of approximation

SEM:

structural equation model

SRMR:

root mean square residual

TLI:

Tucker Lewis index

WLSMV:

weighted least square mean and variance adjusted

References

  1. Coleman EA, Boult C. Improving the quality of Transitional Care for persons with Complex Care needs. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51(4):556–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Niven DJ, Bastos JF, Stelfox HT. Critical Care Transition Programs and the risk of readmission or death after Discharge from an ICU: a systematic review and Meta-Analysis*. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(1):179.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Österlind J, Gerhardsson J, Myrberg T. Critical care transition programs on readmission or death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2020;64(7):870–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. World Health Organization. Global patient safety action plan 2021–2030: towards eliminating avoidable harm in health care [Internet]. Geneva; 2021 [cited 2021 Aug 5]. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240032705.

  5. Forster AJ, Clark HD, Menard A, Dupuis N, Chernish R, Chandok N, et al. Adverse events among medical patients after discharge from hospital. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J J Assoc Medicale Can. 2004;170(3):345–9.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Forster AJ, Murff HJ, Peterson JF, Gandhi TK, Bates DW. The incidence and severity of adverse events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(3):161.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tsilimingras D, Schnipper J, Duke A, Agens J, Quintero S, Bellamy G, et al. Post-discharge adverse events among Urban and Rural patients of an Urban Community Hospital: a prospective cohort study. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(8):1164–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Alqenae FA, Steinke D, Keers RN. Prevalence and Nature of Medication Errors and medication-related harm following discharge from Hospital to Community settings: a systematic review. Drug Saf. 2020;43(6):517–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Moore C, Wisnivesky J, Williams S, McGinn T. Medical errors related to discontinuity of care from an inpatient to an outpatient setting. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(8):646–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Greenwald JL, Denham CR, Jack BW. The Hospital Discharge: a review of a high risk care transition with highlights of a reengineered discharge process. J Patient Saf. 2007;3(2):97–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Goldstein JN, Hicks LS, Kolm P, Weintraub WS, Elliott DJ. Is the Care transitions measure Associated with Readmission Risk? Analysis from a single Academic Center. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(7):732–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Rayan-Gharra N, Balicer RD, Tadmor B, Shadmi E. Association between cultural factors and readmissions: the mediating effect of hospital discharge practices and care-transition preparedness. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28(11):866–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Parry C, Mahoney E, Chalmers SA, Coleman EA. Assessing the quality of Transitional Care. Further Applications of the Care Transitions Measure; 2008.

  14. Cao X, Chen L, Diao Y, Tian L, Liu W, Jiang X. Validity and Reliability of the Chinese Version of the Care Transition Measure. Christiansen H, editor. PLOS ONE. 2015;10(5):e0127403.

  15. Shadmi E, Zisberg A, Coleman EA. Translation and validation of the care transition measure into Hebrew and Arabic. Int J Qual Health Care. 2009;21(2):97–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Becker C, Zumbrunn S, Beck K, Vincent A, Loretz N, Müller J, et al. Interventions to Improve Communication at Hospital Discharge and Rates of Readmission: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(8):e2119346.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Carter J, Ward C, Wexler D, Donelan K. The association between patient experience factors and likelihood of 30-day readmission: a prospective cohort study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27(9):683–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Coleman EA, Smith JD, Frank JC, Eilertsen TB, Thiare JN, Kramer AM. Development and testing of a measure designed to assess the quality of care transitions. Int J Integr Care. 2002;2:e02.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Coleman EA, Mahoney E, Parry C. Assessing the Quality of Preparation for Posthospital Care from the patient’s perspective: the Care transitions measure. Med Care. 2005;43(3):246–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hwang JI, Chung JH, Kim HK. Psychometric properties of transitional care instruments and their relationships with health literacy: brief PREPARED and care transitions measure. Int J Qual Health Care. 2019;31(10):774–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bakshi AB, Wee SL, Tay C, Wong LM, Leong IYO, Merchant RA, et al. Validation of the care transition measure in multi-ethnic South-East Asia in Singapore. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):256.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Pedersen MK, Meyer G, Uhrenfeldt L. Risk factors for acute care hospital readmission in older persons in western countries: a systematic review. JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Rep. 2017;15(2):454–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rocca HPBL, Peden CJ, Soong J, Holman PA, Bogdanovskaya M, Barclay L. Reasons for readmission after hospital discharge in patients with chronic diseases—information from an international dataset. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(6):e0233457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Murray F, Allen M, Clark CM, Daly CJ, Jacobs DM. Socio-demographic and -economic factors associated with 30-day readmission for conditions targeted by the hospital readmissions reduction program: a population-based study. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1922.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Rijnhart-de Jong H, Haenen J, Bol Raap G, Jekel L, Vossenberg T, Bondarenko O, et al. Determinants of non-recovery in physical health-related quality of life one year after cardiac surgery: a prospective single centre observational study. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020;15(1):234.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Inoue S, Hatakeyama J, Kondo Y, Hifumi T, Sakuramoto H, Kawasaki T, et al. Post-intensive care syndrome: its pathophysiology, prevention, and future directions. Acute Med Surg. 2019;6(3):233–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Cole DA, Preacher KJ. Manifest variable path analysis: potentially serious and misleading consequences due to uncorrected measurement error. Psychol Methods. 2014;19(2):300–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gefen D, Straub D, Boudreau MC. Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice. Commun Assoc Inf Syst [Internet]. 2000 [cited 2023 Feb 6];4. https://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol4/iss1/7.

  29. Acosta AM, Lima MADS, Marques GQ, Levandovski PF, Weber LAF. Brazilian version of the Care transitions measure: translation and validation. Int Nurs Rev. 2017;64(3):379–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Flink M, Tessma M, Cvancarova Småstuen M, Lindblad M, Coleman EA, Ekstedt M. Measuring care transitions in Sweden: validation of the care transitions measure. Int J Qual Health Care. 2018;30(4):291–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. van Melle MA, van Stel HF, Poldervaart JM, de Wit NJ, Zwart DLM. Measurement tools and outcome measures used in transitional patient safety; a systematic review. Davidson GH, editor. PLOS ONE. 2018;13(6):e0197312.

  32. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The strengthening the reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370(9596):1453–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhang Z, Yuan KH. Practical statistical power analysis using Webpower and R [Internet]. ISDSA Press; 2018 [cited 2024 Mar 25]. https://archive.org/download/webpower/WebPower-ISDSA.pdf.

  34. Marsall M, Hornung T, Bäuerle A, Weigl M. Measuring transitional patient safety: adaptation and validation of the German version of the Care transitions measure. Z Für Evidenz Fortbild Qual Im Gesundheitswesen; 2023.

  35. Oikonomou E, Chatburn E, Higham H, Murray J, Lawton R, Vincent C. Developing a measure to assess the quality of care transitions for older people. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):505.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Marsall M, Bäuerle A, Hasenberg T, Schräpler L, Robitzsch A, Niedergethmann M et al. Quality of Care Transition During Hospital Discharge, Patient Safety, and Weight Regain After Bariatric Surgery: a Cross-Sectional Study. Obes Surg [Internet]. 2023 Feb 11 [cited 2023 Feb 12]; https://link.springer.com/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-023-06486-6.

  37. Marsall M, Engelmann G, Skoda EM, Teufel M, Bäuerle A. Measuring Electronic Health literacy: development, validation, and test of Measurement Invariance of a revised German version of the eHealth literacy scale. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(2):e28252.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Engelmann G, Marsall M, Skoda EM, Knoll-Pientka N, Bäuerle L, Stroebele-Benschop N, et al. Development and validation of the General Dietary Behavior Inventory (GDBI) in scope of International Nutrition guidelines. Nutrients. 2021;13(4):1328.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Li CH. Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behav Res Methods. 2016;48(3):936–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Li CH. Statistical estimation of structural equation models with a mixture of continuous and categorical observed variables. Behav Res Methods. 2021;53(5):2191–213.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hu Ltze, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 1999;6(1):1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria. 2023. https://www.r-project.org/.

  43. Posit Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R [Internet]. Boston, MA: Posit Software, PBC. 2023. http://www.posit.co/.

  44. O’Hara JK, Baxter R, Hardicre N. Handing over to the patient’: a FRAM analysis of transitional care combining multiple stakeholder perspectives. Appl Ergon. 2020;85:103060.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Dräger S. Who is responsible for a safe discharge from hospital? A prospective risk analysis in the German setting. Z Für Evidenz Fortbild Qual Im Gesundheitswesen. 2016;113:9–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Coulter A. Measuring what matters to patients. BMJ. 2017;356:j816.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Vincent CA, Coulter A. Patient safety: what about the patient? Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11(1):76–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Yoshimura M, Sato M, Sumi N. Validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the Care transitions measure. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2018;33(2):380–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Mistiaen P, Francke AL, Poot E. Interventions aimed at reducing problems in adult patients discharged from hospital to home: a systematic meta-review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7(1):47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Rodrigues CR, Harrington AR, Murdock N, Holmes JT, Borzadek EZ, Calabro K, et al. Effect of pharmacy-supported transition-of-care interventions on 30-Day readmissions: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Ann Pharmacother. 2017;51(10):866–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. World Health Organization. Medication without harm - global patient Safety Challenge on Medication Safety. Geneva; 2017.

  52. World Health Organization. Medication safety in transitions of care: technical report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019.

  53. Dionisi S, Di Simone E, Liquori G, De Leo A, Di Muzio M, Giannetta N. Medication errors’ causes analysis in home care setting: a systematic review. Public Health Nurs. 2021;phn.13037.

  54. Farley TM, Shelsky C, Powell S, Farris KB, Carter BL. Effect of clinical pharmacist intervention on medication discrepancies following hospital discharge. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36(2):430–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Allison GM, Weigel B, Holcroft C. Does electronic medication reconciliation at hospital discharge decrease prescription medication errors? Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2015;28(6):564–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Schnipper JL, Nieva HR, Mallouk M, Mixon A, Rennke S, Chu E, et al. Effects of a refined evidence-based toolkit and mentored implementation on medication reconciliation at 18 hospitals: results of the MARQUIS2 study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2022;31(4):278–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Daliri S, Boujarfi S, el Mokaddam A, Scholte op Reimer WJM, ter Riet G, den Haan C, et al. Medication-related interventions delivered both in hospital and following discharge: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Qual Saf. 2021;30(2):146–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Oksholm T, Gissum KR, Hunskår I, Augestad MT, Kyte K, Stensletten K et al. The effect of transitions intervention to ensure patient safety and satisfaction when transferred from hospital to home health care—A systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2023;jan.15579.

  59. Laugaland K, Aase K, Barach P. Interventions to improve patient safety in transitional care – a review of the evidence. Work. 2012;41:2915–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Leppin AL, Gionfriddo MR, Kessler M, Brito JP, Mair FS, Gallacher K, et al. Preventing 30-Day hospital readmissions: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of Randomized trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(7):1095–107.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Weingart SN, Pagovich O, Sands DZ, Li JM, Aronson MD, Davis RB, et al. What can hospitalized patients tell us about adverse events? Learning from patient-reported incidents. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(9):830–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Miriam Buchhorn, Christine Noèl, and Alfred Dahmen for their support in the survey development and the project administration.

Funding

The study was conducted without external funding.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Patient Safety (IfPS), University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Matthias Marsall & Matthias Weigl

  2. University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Thorsten Hornung

  3. Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LVR–University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

    Alexander Bäuerle

  4. Center for Translational Neuro- and Behavioral Sciences (C-TNBS), University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

    Alexander Bäuerle

Authors
  1. Matthias Marsall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thorsten Hornung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexander Bäuerle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthias Weigl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: MM, TH, and MW; Methodology: MM, TH, and MW; Formal analysis: MM and MW; Resources: TH and MW; Data Curation: MM, TH, and MW; Writing - Original Draft: MM, TH, AB, and MW; Writing - Review & Editing: MM, TH, AB, and MW; Visualization: MM and MW; Supervision: MW; Project administration: MM, TH, and MW.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Marsall.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki. The Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University of Bonn approved the study (protocol code 107/22). The study is registered under protocol code DRKS00028947 in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS). Study participants received written information prior to data collection. Participation was voluntary and informed consent for study participation was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

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/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marsall, M., Hornung, T., Bäuerle, A. et al. Quality of care transition, patient safety incidents, and patients’ health status: a structural equation model on the complexity of the discharge process. BMC Health Serv Res 24, 576 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11047-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11047-3

Keywords

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us