Dataset Information

Hospital-Level Care at Home for Acutely Ill Adults: a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Hospitals are standard of care for acute illness, but hospitals can be unsafe, uncomfortable, and expensive. Providing substitutive hospital-level care in a patient's home potentially reduces cost while maintaining or improving quality, safety, and patient experience, although evidence from randomized controlled trials in the US is lacking. OBJECTIVE:Determine if home hospital care reduces cost while maintaining quality, safety, and patient experience. DESIGN:Randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS:Adults admitted via the emergency department with any infection or exacerbation of heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or asthma. INTERVENTION:Home hospital care, including nurse and physician home visits, intravenous medications, continuous monitoring, video communication, and point-of-care testing. MAIN MEASURES:Primary outcome was direct cost of the acute care episode. Secondary outcomes included utilization, 30-day cost, physical activity, and patient experience. KEY RESULTS:Nine patients were randomized to home, 11 to usual care. Median direct cost of the acute care episode for home patients was 52% (IQR, 28%; p?=?0.05) lower than for control patients. During the care episode, home patients had fewer laboratory orders (median per admission: 6 vs. 19; p?

SUBMITTER: Levine DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5910347 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Hospital-Level Care at Home for Acutely Ill Adults: a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Levine David M DM Ouchi Kei K Blanchfield Bonnie B Diamond Keren K Licurse Adam A Pu Charles T CT Schnipper Jeffrey L JL

Journal of general internal medicine 20180206 5

<h4>Background</h4>Hospitals are standard of care for acute illness, but hospitals can be unsafe, uncomfortable, and expensive. Providing substitutive hospital-level care in a patient's home potentially reduces cost while maintaining or improving quality, safety, and patient experience, although evidence from randomized controlled trials in the US is lacking.<h4>Objective</h4>Determine if home hospital care reduces cost while maintaining quality, safety, and patient experience.<h4>Design</h4>Ran ...[more]

PMID: 29411238

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSubstitutive hospital-level care in a patient's home ("home hospital") has been shown to lower cost, utilization, and readmission compared to traditional hospital care. However, patients' perspectives to help explain how and why interventions like home hospital accomplish many of these results are lacking.ObjectiveElucidate and explain patient perceptions of home hospital versus traditional hospital care to better describe the different perceptions of care in both settings.DesignQualitative evaluation of a randomized controlled trial.Participants36 hospitalized patients (19 home; 17 control).InterventionTraditional hospital ("control") versus home hospital ("home"), including nurse and physician home visits, intravenous medications, remote monitoring, video communication, and point-of-care testing.ApproachWe conducted a thematic content analysis of semi-structured interviews. Team members developed a coding structure through a multiphase approach, utilizing a constant comparative method.Key resultsThemes clustered around 3 domains: clinician factors, factors promoting healing, and systems factors. Clinician factors were similar in both groups; both described beneficial interactions with clinical staff; however, home patients identified greater continuity of care. For factors promoting healing, home patients described a locus of control surrounding their sleep, activity, and environmental comfort that control patients lacked. For systems factors, home patients experienced more efficient processes and logistics, particularly around admission and technology use, while both noted difficulty with discharge planning.ConclusionsCompared to control patients, home patients had better experiences with their care team, had more experiences promoting healing such as better sleep and physical activity, and had better experiences with systems factors such as the admission processes. Potential explanations include continuity of care, the power and familiarity of the home, and streamlined logistics. Future improvements include enhanced care transitions and ensuring digital interfaces are usable.Trial registrationNCT03203759.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In the critically ill, energy delivery from enteral nutrition (EN) is often less than the estimated energy requirement. Parenteral nutrition (PN) as a supplement to EN may increase energy delivery. We aimed to determine if an individually titrated supplemental PN strategy commenced 48-72 hours following ICU admission and continued for up to 7 days would increase energy delivery to critically ill adults compared to usual care EN delivery. METHODS:This study was a prospective, parallel group, phase II pilot trial conducted in six intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand. Mechanically ventilated adults with at least one organ failure and EN delivery below 80% of estimated energy requirement in the previous 24 hours received either a supplemental PN strategy (intervention group) or usual care EN delivery. EN in the usual care group could be supplemented with PN if EN remained insufficient after usual methods to optimise delivery were attempted. RESULTS:There were 100 patients included in the study and 99 analysed. Overall, 71% of the study population were male, with a mean (SD) age of 59 (17) years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 18.2 (6.7) and body mass index of 29.6 (5.8) kg/m2. Significantly greater energy (mean (SD) 1712 (511) calories vs. 1130 (601) calories, p?<?0.0001) and proportion of estimated energy requirement (mean (SD) 83 (25) % vs. 53 (29) %, p?<?0.0001) from EN and/or PN was delivered to the intervention group compared to usual care. Delivery of protein and proportion of estimated protein requirements were also greater in the intervention group (mean (SD) 86 (25) g, 86 (23) %) compared to usual care (mean (SD) 53 (29) g, 51 (25) %, p?<?0.0001). Antibiotic use, ICU and hospital length of stay, mortality and functional outcomes were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:This individually titrated supplemental PN strategy applied over 7 days significantly increased energy delivery when compared to usual care delivery. Clinical and functional outcomes were similar between the two patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinical Trial registry details: NCT01847534 (First registered 22 April 2013, last updated 31 July 2016).

Project description:ImportanceHome hospital care is the substitutive provision of home-based acute care services usually associated with a traditional inpatient hospital. Many home hospital models require a physician to see patients at home daily, which may hinder scalability. Whether remote physician visits can safely substitute for most in-home visits is unknown.ObjectiveTo compare remote and in-home physician care.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial assessed 172 adult patients at an academic medical center and community hospital who required hospital-level care for select acute conditions, including infection, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma, between August 3, 2019, and March 26, 2020; follow-up ended April 26, 2020.InterventionsAll patients received acute care at home, including in-home nurse or paramedic visits, intravenous medications, remote monitoring, and point-of-care testing. Patients were randomized to receive physician care remotely (initial in-home visit followed by daily video visit facilitated by the home hospital nurse) vs in-home care (daily in-home physician visit). In the remote care group, the physician could choose to see the patient at home beyond the first visit if it was felt to be medically necessary.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the number of adverse events, compared using multivariable Poisson regression at a noninferiority threshold of 10 events per 100 patients. Adverse events included a fall, pressure injury, and delirium. Secondary outcomes included the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire 15 score (scale of 0-15, with 0 indicating worst patient experience and 15 indicating best patient experience) and 30-day readmission rates.ResultsA total of 172 patients (84 receiving remote care and 88 receiving in-home physician care [control group]) were randomized; enrollment was terminated early because of COVID-19. The mean (SD) age was 69.3 (18.0) years, 97 patients (56.4%) were female, 77 (45.0%) were White, and 42 (24.4%) lived alone. Mean adjusted adverse event count was 6.8 per 100 patients for remote care patients vs 3.9 per 100 patients for control patients, for a difference of 2.8 (95% CI, -3.3 to 8.9), supporting noninferiority. For remote care vs control patients, the mean adjusted Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire 15 score difference was -0.22 (95% CI, -1.00 to 0.56), supporting noninferiority. The mean adjusted 30-day readmission absolute rate difference was 2.28% (95% CI, -3.23% to 7.79%), which was inconclusive. Of patients in the remote group, 16 (19.0%) required in-home visits beyond the first visit.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, remote physician visits were noninferior to in-home physician visits during home hospital care for adverse events and patient experience, although in-home physician care was necessary to support many patients receiving remote care. Our findings may allow for a more efficient, scalable home hospital approach but require further research.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04080570.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Individuals with spinal cord injuries (SCI) are prone to pressure ulcers (PUs) because of the loss of sensorimotor function involved as well as increased skin moisture. Treatment of PU after SCI is complicated, involving different specialties and with need for long-lasting follow-up. This study should identify risk factors for PU after SCI, and find an effective and less time-consuming treatment for the condition among different available methods for follow-up. METHOD/DESIGN:The first part of this research project aims to investigate the prevalence of PU among persons with SCI based on an epidemiological design. The study will identify possible risk factors for acquiring PU. A questionnaire focusing on previous and present PUs will be sent to persons who suffered SCIs between January 2004 and January 2014. In the second part we will compare two different treatment regimens of PU through a randomized controlled pilot trial (RCT) where we will compare outpatient SCI follow-up in a hospital versus outpatient follow-up from the patient's home, using telemedicine (teleSCI) interventions. We will compare the healing of the PU in the two groups (usual care versus teleSCI). The Tissue, Infection, Moisture Edge (TIME) registration form, the Photographic Wound Assessment Tool (PWAT) and the change in the ulcer size will be used to monitor the healing. Changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the need for assistance will be assessed using the Five Dimensions European Quality of Life scale (EQ-5D), the generic Medical Outcomes Study 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) modified version, the International Spinal Cord Injury Quality of Life Data set (ISCI-QoL Data set), and the Spinal Cord Independence Measure scale, version III (SCIM III). In addition to primary outcome measures, a cost-benefit evaluation and an assessment of patient satisfaction and participation will be performed, using customized questionnaires. DISCUSSION:The first part of the research project will reveal the epidemiology of PU after SCI, and explore the risk factors. This part enables further prevention of PU after SCI and this information will be used in the follow-up RCT. Videoconferencing in the outpatient follow-up of persons with SCI and PU will change clinical routines and facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration, communication and competence exchange among participants of the health care services. Our research protocol allows comparing methods for interaction between medical specialists at hospitals, local caregivers in the community, next of kin, and persons with SCI and PU. The RCT should identify advantages as well as challenges in the management of PU in different follow-up settings. This study aims to identify risk factors for PU after SCI, and find an effective and less time consuming treatment for the condition among different available methods for follow- up. TRIAL REGISTRATION:1. www.ClinicalTrials.gov , ID: NCT02800915 , last update 9 October 2017. 2. The National Regional Ethical Committee (REC) 2014/ 684/ REK-Nord. https://helseforskning.etikkom.no/prosjekterirek/prosjektregister/prosjekt?p_document_id=469163&p_parent_id=473640&_ikbLanguageCode=n 3. https://app.cristin.no/projects/show.jsf?id=545284 4. https://www.sunnaas.no/kliniske-studier/bruk-av-telemedisin-som-virkemiddel-til-samhandling-i-poliklinisk-oppfolging-av-pasienter-med-ryggmargsskade-og-trykksar.

Project description:AimsThe prolonged use of benzodiazepines and opioids can lead to an increase in the incidence of withdrawal syndrome. One of the known risk factors is the lack of a sedative-weaning protocol. This study established a sedative-weaning protocol and compared this protocol with the usual care of weaning in high-risk critically ill children.Materials and methodsThis was an open-label, randomized controlled trial in a tertiary-care hospital. We recruited children aged 1 month to 18 years who had received intravenous sedative or analgesic drugs for at least 5 days. The exclusion criteria were patients who had already experienced the withdrawal syndrome. We established a weaning protocol. Eligible patients were randomly divided into the protocolized (intervention) and usual care (control) groups. The primary objective was to determine the prevalence of the withdrawal syndrome compared between two groups.ResultsThirty eligible patients were enrolled (19 in the intervention and 11 in the control group). Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between both the groups. The prevalence of the withdrawal syndrome was 84% and 81% of patients in the intervention and control group, respectively. The duration of the initial weaning phase was shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (p value = 0.026). The cumulative dose of morphine solution for rescue therapy in the intervention group was statistically lower than that in the control group (p value = 0.016).ConclusionThe implementation of the sedative-weaning protocol led to a significant reduction in the percentage of withdrawal days and length of intensive care unit stay without any adverse drug reactions. External validation would be needed to validate this protocol.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT03018977.How to cite this articleTiacharoen D, Lertbunrian R, Veawpanich J, Suppalarkbunlue N, Anantasit N. Protocolized Sedative Weaning vs Usual Care in Pediatric Critically Ill Patients: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(6):451-458.

Dataset Information

Hospital-Level Care at Home for Acutely Ill Adults: a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Publications

Hospital-Level Care at Home for Acutely Ill Adults: a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets