Table 1 Study characteristics of included studies

Clemson et al., 2016 [7]

RCT

Australia

Acute care, unspecified

n = 400

Intervention 80.2 (±6.4, range n.r.)

♀ 59.6%

Control

80.7 (± 5.7, range n.r.)

♀ 63.9%

Intervention

In-hospital rapport building, interview, ADL-assessment, predischarge home visit, post-discharge home-visit, telephone calls

Control

Usual care, in-hospital interview, ADL assessment, access visit if required

Functional independence, participation in ADL, unplanned readmissions, emergency department visits, recommendations

NEADL [38], Late Life Disability Index (LLDI) - sub scores: frequency and limitation [39], number of: recommendations, unplanned readmissions, emergency department visits, falls, process outcomes (e.g., number of prescribed and tried equipment; effects not estimated)

3

Drummond et al., 2013 [8]

RCT

UK

Stroke rehabilitation unit

n = 126

Intervention

70.64 (± 14.29, range 34–88)

♀ 54.7%

Control

73.65 (± 16.06, range 41–99)

♀ 47.8%

Intervention

One or two predischarge home visits

Control

Structured home assessment interview

ADL/IADL, mobility, unplanned readmissions, falls, emotional distress in medical settings, depressed mood of clients with stroke and significant aphasia, caregiver strain

NEADL [38], Barthel Index [40], RMI [41], Number of unplanned readmissions, GHQ-28 [42], SADQ-10 [43], Caregiver Strain Index [44]

1

Hagsten et al., 2004 [22]

Hagsten et al., 2006 [25]

RCT

Sweden

Acute care, hip fractures

n = 100

Intervention

81 (± 23, range 68–91)

♀ 84%

Control

79 (± 30, range 65–95)

♀ 76%

Intervention

Individual daily training, including use of technical aids, single predischarge home visit

Control

One session of walking instruction when in hospital

ADL/IADL, health-related quality of life

ADL [45], EQ. 5D [46], IADL single scales: moving around indoors; performance of light housework; getting in and out of a car, SWED-QUAL [47] subscales

2

Lannin et al., 2007 [23]

RCT

Australia

Rehabilitation unit, mixed (cardiac, orthopedic trauma, neurological, orthopedic joint surgery, spinal or deconditioned)

n = 10

Intervention

80.0 (± 7, range n.r.)

♀ 100%

Control

82.4 (± 7, range n.r.)

♀ 60%

Intervention

Single predischarge home visit

Control

In-hospital consultation prior to discharge

ADL/IADL, mobility, unplanned readmissions, falls, fear of falling, community support, health-related quality of life

NEADL [38], FIM [48], RNLI - Reintegration to Normal Living Index [49], Tinnetti [50], number of unplanned readmissions, number of falls, FES-I [51], EQ. 5D [46], EQ-5D VAS [52]

7

Lockwood et al., 2019 [53]

RCT

Australia

Acute and rehabilitation, hip fractures

n = 77

Intervention

83.4 (± 7.1, range n.r.)

♀ 76%

Control

80.9 (± 7.3, range n.r.)

♀ 68%

Intervention

Single predischarge home visit and usual care

Control

usual care

ADL/IADL, health-related quality of life, unplanned readmissions, number of days in hospital after index discharge, falls, fear of falling, adverse events

NEADL [38], SMAF [54], FIM [55], FES-I [51], EQ. 5D [46], EQ-5D VAS [52]

6

Lockwood et al., 2020 [26] ^b

RCT, process evaluation

Australia

Acute and rehabilitation, hip fractures

n = 77

Intervention

83.4 (± 7.1, range n.r.)

♀ 76%

Control

80.9 (± 7.3, range n.r.)

♀ 68%

Intervention

Single predischarge home visit and usual care

Control

usual care

Recommendations, adherence to recommendations

Number of recommendations, Number of adherence to recommendations

1

Nikolaus et al., 2003 [1]

RCT

Germany

Geriatric acute care, unspecified

n = 360

Intervention

81.2

(±6.2, range 84.9–87.5)

♀ 72.4%

Control

81.9

(±6.5, range 74.4–88.4)

♀ 74.3%

Intervention

Predischarge home visit and post-discharge follow-up visit(s), comprehensive in-hospital geriatric assessment

Control

Comprehensive geriatric assessment and usual care

Falls, recommendations

Number of falls, compliance with recommendations after 12 months

12

Pardessus et al., 2002 [24]

RCT

France

Geriatric acute care, unspecified

n = 60

Intervention

83.51 (± 9.08, range n.r.)

♀ 76%

Control

82.9 (± 6.33, range n.r.)

♀ 80%

Intervention

Predischarge home visit

Control

Usual care

ADL/IADL,

Falls, re-hospitalization, institutionalization

IADL [56], SMAF subscales [54] ADL subscales [57] number of recurring falls, mean number of fall recurrence in former fallers, number of re-hospitalizations, number of institutionalizations

12

Provencher et al., 2020 [27] ^a

RCT, Post-hoc analysis

Australia

Acute care, unspecified

n = 400

Intervention 80.2 (±6.4, range n.r.)

♀ 59.6%

Control

80.7 (± 5.7, range n.r.)

♀ 63.9%

Intervention

In-hospital rapport building, interview, ADL-assessment, predischarge home visit, post-discharge home visit, telephone calls

Control

Usual care, in-hospital interview, ADL assessment, access visit if required

Functional independence, participation in ADL, unplanned readmissions, emergency department visits, recommendations

NEADL [34], Late Life Disability Index (LLDI) - sub scores: frequency and limitation [58], number of: recommendations, unplanned readmissions, emergency department visits, falls, process outcomes (e.g., number of prescribed and tried equipment; effects not estimated)

3

Threapleton et al., 2018 [2]

RCT

UK

Stroke ward, acute care

n = 16

Intervention

72 (±21.08, range 38–90)

♀ 75%

Control

70 (± 12.6, range 46–86)

♀ 37%

Intervention

Single predischarge virtual home assessment

Control

Usual care

ADL/IADL, overall independence, mobility, fear of falling, health-related quality of life

NEADL [38], Barthel- Index [40], MRS [59], Rivermead Mobility Index [41], FES-I [51], EQ. 5D [46]

6

Wales et al., 2018 [28] ^a

RCT, economic evaluation

Australia

Acute care, unspecified

n = 400

Intervention 80.2 (±6.4, range n.r.)

♀ 59.6%

Control

80.7 (± 5.7, range n.r.)

♀ 63.9%

Intervention

In-hospital rapport building, interview, ADL-assessment, predischarge home visit, post-discharge home visit, telephone calls

Control

Usual care, in-hospital interview, ADL assessment, access visit if required

Costs for predischarge home visits

costs for occupational therapy

time, travel, community follow up, hospital readmission

3

Atwal et al., 2008 [31]

Semi-structured interview

UK

Geriatric acute care

Patients, main carers

n = 15

86,46 years

(range 73–97)

♀ 60%

Intervention

Single predischarge home visit

- To explore older adults’ and carers’ involvement in decisions that were made during the home visit;

- To explore older adults’ and carers’ perceptions of the home visit process

n.a.

n.a.

Atwal et al., 2014a [32]

Semi-structured interview; think aloud technique

UK

Acute care and community care

OTs

n = 7

♀ 71%

social services, older persons, mental health, acute care, pediatrics

Intervention

Virtual reality predischarge home assessment with interior design application

- To explore occupational therapists’ perceptions of a virtual reality interior design application (VRIDA);

- to gain insights into the feasibility of using VRIDA as a tool to aid the predischarge home visit (perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, actual use)

n.a.

n.a.

Atwal et al., 2014b [37]

Semi-structured interview

UK

Acute care, intermediate care, rehabilitation,

older patients, mental health (older people)

OTs

n = 21

Intervention

Predischarge home visit / access visit

- To explore occupational therapists’ perceptions of home visits;

- To ascertain occupational therapists’ clinical reasoning with respect to conducting home visits

n.a.

n.a.

Cameron et al., 2014 [33]

In-depth interview, semi-structured, focus groups

Canada

Rehabilitation facility, stroke

Patients

n = 16

62 years

(range 25–87)

♀ 75%

Family caregivers n = 15

41 years

(range 23–75)

♀ 86,7%

Multiple health professionals

n = 20

Intervention

Single predischarge home visit or preparation in hospital and single/multiple predischarge weekend passes

- To explore stroke survivors’, caregivers’, and healthcare professionals’ perceptions of weekend passes offered during inpatient rehabilitation and its role in facilitating the transition home

n.a.

n.a.

Davis et al., 2019 [30]

Semi-structured survey

Republic of Ireland

acute settings, rehabilitation settings and convalescence settings, adult patients (over 18 years)

OTs

n = 122

Intervention

Pre-discharge home visit

- To investigate clinical practice during DPHV and the clinical reasoning guiding occupational therapists within an Irish context

n.a. for semistructured part quantitative part of survey: use of standardized tool, contents of home visit bag, numbers of recommendations, consensus on clinical practice

n.a.

Godfrey et al., 2019 [34]

Focus-group interviews

Australia

Acute or sub-acute settings from three facilities

OTs

n = 19

Multidisciplinary stakeholders

n = 8

Intervention

Pre-discharge home visit

- To understand both occupational therapists’ and multidisciplinary stakeholders’ perceptions and contemporary practice regarding decision-making and pre-discharge home visits through exploration of experience and current practice in the Australian context. Investigation of factors associated with when, how and to whom pre-discharge home visits are provided

n.a.

Hibberd, 2008 [29]

Semi-structured interview

UK

Intermediate care unit

Patients

n = 4

65 years and older

♀ 50%

Intervention

Predischarge home visit / access visit

Part of an evaluation study;

- To gain patient perspectives on home visiting process -to ensure service meets needs

n.a.

n.a.

Nygard et al., 2004 [35]

Interviews, focus groups, participant observation

Sweden

Geriatric acute care, mixed diagnoses

Patients

n = 23

78 years

(range 68–86)

♀ 50%

Living alone

n = 12

OTs

n = 9

Intervention

Single predischarge home visit

- To describe and illustrate, from both clients’ and therapists’ perspectives, the occupational therapy interventions and recommendations that were undertaken and followed-up in common practice during predischarge home visits;

- To gain insight in the accuracy of expectations of therapists and in perceived usefulness of predischarge home visits to clients

n.a.

n.a.

Threapleton et al., 2017 [3]

Semi-structured interview

UK

Acute care, rehabilitation, community,

stroke

Patients

n = 8

68 years

(range 44–92)

♀ 75%

Stroke survivors n = 4

70 years

(range 61–79)

♀ 75%

OTs

n = 13

Intervention

Virtual predischarge home visit

- To explore perceptions concerning the acceptability, potential utility and limitations of the use of a virtual reality interior design application from the perspectives of therapists and patients

n.a.

n.a.

Whitehead et al., 2014 [36]

Semi-structured interview

UK

Acute, rehabilitation, mixed, hyper acute, stroke

OTs

n = 20

Intervention

Predischarge home assessment visits

- To explore what factors occupational therapists consider when deciding which patients with a stroke need a predischarge home assessment visit

n.a.

n.a.