Poster Presentation
Friday, July 13, 2007
9:30 AM - 10:15 AM
Friday, July 13, 2007
3:15 PM - 4:00 PM
To Evaluate the Effectiveness of a Discharge-Planning Program For Hip Fracture Patients
Pi-Chu Lin, EdD, Ching-Hui Wang, MS, RN, Li-Ping Liao, BS, and Chyang-Shiong Chen, BS. Nursing Department, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
| Learning Objective #1: The learner will understand a discharge planning program for hip fracture. |
| Learning Objective #2: The learner will be able to evaluate the effectiveness of a discharge planning program. |
The aims of this study were to establish and evaluate the effectiveness of a discharge-planning program for hip fracture patients. A quasi-experimental design was implemented with purposive sampling. Total sample size was 43, with 17 patients who were in control group received traditional discharge nursing care, while 26 experimental group patients received a comprehensive discharge planning, it included need assessment, pre-discharge instruction, coordination of services, resource procurement referral and home visit services. The results were as follows: The mean length of stay in experimental group was 6.04(SD=2.41), and 5.88(SD=1.73) in control group, it showed no difference between two groups. There was a significant improvement in physical functions at three months after patients discharge, but they weren’t full recovery to that level of pre-fracture, and there was no significant difference was found between two groups. The mean score on knowledge of self-care was 9.19(SD=1.62) in experimental, and 8.47 (SD=2.80) in control before discharge, there was no significant difference between two groups (t=1.06, p=.292), while two weeks after discharge, the mean score was 8.84(SD=2.14) for experimental group and 6.52(SD=2.00) for control group, there was a significant difference (t=3.54, p=.001). Score on quality of life of experimental group was better than that of control group three months after discharge. Mean score of satisfaction level about discharge planning was 3.92(SD=.73) in experimental, and 3.53(SD=.89) in control, there was no difference between two groups. The findings can be used as a guidance of discharge planning for clinical practice.