To the Editor: The Transition Care Program (TCP) is a joint federal and state government program that provides short-term (8–12 weeks) support and therapy to improve functioning for older people who are hospitalised (either in public or private hospitals) and would otherwise require admission to a residential aged care facility.1 Participants are provided with a care package that assists with activities of daily living, and provides limited allied health, nursing and medical input, with the aim of improving functional status, if possible.

The TCP is currently being implemented across Australia. We selected and audited three transition care services that commenced operation early in the program (2005 and early 2006), with the aim of describing the outcomes of these services, and determining whether the older people participating in the various services were similar. Approval was obtained from the relevant ethics committees.

Three services were purposefully sampled: two services in Adelaide (Service A providing packages in a community setting, and Service B providing packages in a high-level care, residential aged care setting); and one service in Sydney (Service C providing packages in a community setting). The residential package allocates temporary residential placements for patients with defined rehabilitation goals, and thus also frees up acute care hospital beds. These services supplied de-identified audit data about the first 30 participants, who were in the program between June and December 2006.

A summary of the data is given in the Box. The participants in the residential program tended to be older, more likely to be male, and less likely to have “fracture or fall” as their primary diagnosis. These older people also had more severe disability that generally does not improve, and were significantly less likely to return to community living. The two community-based programs were generally similar.

The data suggest that there is considerable variation between the TCP services, with the residential service providing packages to older people with severe disability who generally remain in a residential aged care program, although some may improve from high- to low-level aged care services. By contrast, the outcome of the community-based services is generally maintenance in the community and is associated with an improvement in functioning. This profile is similar to that of a community-based rehabilitation service for older people. It is not clear from the TCP guidelines whether this level of variation in program implementation was anticipated.1

This limited audit suggests that the Australian TCP is not homogeneous and is substituting for other forms of treatment and care. Thus, there is provision of high-level residential care as a substitute for waiting for residential aged care in a hospital bed, and community rehabilitation as a substitute for rehabilitation services provided by state health departments. This situation is potentially beneficial to older people who previously did not have access to these services, but it also could mean that state governments may not establish rehabilitation services for older people, or may even cease providing these services.