Skip to main content

Table 5 Team members and services received on wards

From: Comprehensive geriatric assessment pilot of a randomized control study in a Swedish acute hospital: a feasibility study

 

Intervention

n = 16

Control

n = 14

Mean difference CI**

Medical doctor, n (%)

16 (100)

14 (100)

–

Nursing, n (%)

16 (100)

14 (100)

–

OT assessment, n (%)

14 (88)

1 (7)

−0.80 (−1.06,-0.57)

OT assistive devices*, n (%)

14 (88)

2 (14)

−0.73 (−1.00,-0.47)

PT assessment, n (%)

13 (81)

10 (71)

−0.10 (−0.42, 0.23)

PT assistive devices*, n (%)

13 (81)

10 (71)

−0.10 (−0.42, 0.23)

Nutritionist, n (%)

3 (19)

1 (7)

−0.12 (−0.38, 0.14)

Social Worker, n (%)

1 (6)

0 (0)

−0.63 (−0.20, 0.08)

Discharge plan, n (%)

16 (100)

11 (79)

−0.21 (−0.43, 0.00)

Care planning meeting***, n (%)

8 (50)

2 (14)

−0.36 (−0.70,-0.02)

  1. *Assistive devices entails: needs assessment, training with, arranging for use of on the ward and or at discharge
  2. **95% confidence intervals (CI)
  3. ***Care planning meeting: ward staff, municipality home health services and patient planning of services required after discharge