Background Predischarge home assessments (PDHA) aim to support safe discharge from hospital or rehabilitation. There is insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of PDHA. For adults with any diagnosis, we aimed to determine (1) the effects of PDHA on outcomes associated with the successful return to community living (e.g., Activities of Daily Living, falls) and (2) the associated barriers and facilitators in order to derive recommendations for clinical practice. Methods We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, five additional databases and other sources. We included individual and cluster randomized (RCT/cRCT) and controlled clinical trials comparing PDHA versus usual care/other intervention, as well as qualitative/mixed methods studies dealing with PDHA. Critical appraisal was performed according to the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool in quantitative studies and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) as well as the McMaster University Guidelines for Critical Review Form for qualitative studies and data extraction. Meta-analysis, thematic synthesis and integrative synthesis were performed. Results Eight RCTs (n = 1072) and ten qualitative studies (n = 336) met the inclusion criteria. RCTs reported a variety of outcomes (n = 17). We are uncertain if PDHA has any effect on patient outcomes in Activities of Daily Living, quality of life, mobility and fear of falling, falls and hospital readmissions (with moderate to very low quality of the evidence). The qualitative studies revealed facilitators and barriers which should be considered by therapists when conducting PDHA. These were related to the following topics: patient safety education, patient information, patients’ acceptance of modifications and aids, functional assessment, standardization of procedures as well as the consideration of relevant patient conditions and contextual factors in PDHA. Conclusion There is no evidence from the meta-analysis for the effectiveness of PDHA. Further robust studies are needed to adapt and evaluate PDHA interventions, taking the identified stakeholders’ views on PDHA into account and following the current recommendations for the development and evaluation of complex interventions. Trial registration The review was registered and methods were reported on PROSPERO on 18th July 2018 (CRD42018100636).

Background: Predischarge home assessments (PDHA) aim to support safe discharge from hospital or rehabilitation. There is insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of PDHA. For adults with any diagnosis, we aimed to determine (1) the effects of PDHA on outcomes associated with the successful return to community living (e.g., Activities of Daily Living, falls) and (2) the associated barriers and facilitators in order to derive recommendations for clinical practice.Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, five additional databases and other sources. We included individual and cluster randomized (RCT/cRCT) and controlled clinical trials comparing PDHA versus usual care/other intervention, as well as qualitative/mixed methods studies dealing with PDHA. Critical appraisal was performed according to the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool in quantitative studies and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) as well as the McMaster University Guidelines for Critical Review Form for qualitative studies and data extraction. Meta-analysis, thematic synthesis and integrative synthesis were performed. Results: EightRCTs (n=1149) and eleven qualitative studies (n=346) met the inclusion criteria. RCTs reported a variety of outcomes (n=17). We are uncertain if PDHA has any effect on patient outcomes in Activities of Daily Living, quality of life, mobility and fear of falling, falls and hospital readmissions (with moderate to very low quality of the evidence). The qualitative studies revealed facilitators and barriers which should be considered by therapists when conducting PDHA. These were related to the following topics: patient safety education, patient information, patients’ acceptance of modifications and aids, functional assessment, standardization of procedures as well as the consideration of relevant patient conditions and contextual factors in PDHA. Conclusion: There is no evidence from the meta-analysis for the effectiveness of PDHA. Further robust studies are needed to adapt and evaluate PDHA interventions, taking the identified stakeholders’ views on PDHA into account and following the current recommendations for the development and evaluation of complex interventions. Trial registration:The review was registered and methods were reported on PROSPERO on 18th July 2018 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO. CRD42018100636).

Background: Predischarge home assessments (PDHA) aim to ensure safe discharge from hospital or rehabilitation. There is insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of PDHA. For adults with any diagnosis, we aimed to determine (1) the effects of PDHA on outcomes associated with the successful return to community living (e.g., Activities of Daily Living falls) and (2) the associated barriers and facilitators to derive recommendations for clinical practice.Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, five additional databases and other sources. We included individual and cluster randomized (RCT/cRCT) and controlled clinical trials comparing PDHA versus usual care/other intervention, as well as qualitative/mixed methods studies dealing with PDHA. Critical appraisal was performed according to the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool in quantitative studies and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) for qualitative studies and data extraction. Meta-analysis, thematic synthesis and integrative synthesis were performed.Results: Seven RCTs (n = 1072) and ten qualitative studies (n = 245) met the inclusion criteria. RCTs reported a variety of outcomes (n = 17). There is moderate to very low evidence for missing effects on (instrumental) Activities of Daily Living, quality of life, risk of falling and risk of readmission, mobility and fear of falling. The qualitative studies revealed the following topics related to patient education, patient information, patients’ acceptance of modifications and aids, involvement of patient goals and meaningful activities in functional assessment, as well as relevant social- and diagnosis-related patient conditions in PDHA. Seven implications for interventions were derived from these topics. Six of the included RCTs each addressed at least one and at most three of the seven identified meaningful implications for implementation.Conclusion: There is no evidence from the meta-analysis for the effectiveness of PDHA. Further robust studies are needed to adapt and evaluate PDHA interventions, taking the identified implications from stakeholders’ views into account, and should follow the current recommendations for the development and evaluation of complex interventions.Trial registration: The review was registered and methods were reported on PROSPERO on 18th July 2018 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO. CRD42018100636).