Dataset Information

Hospital-at-Home Interventions vs In-Hospital Stay for Patients With Chronic Disease Who Present to the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Hospitalizations are costly and may lead to adverse events; hospital-at-home interventions could be a substitute for in-hospital stays, particularly for patients with chronic diseases who use health services more than other patients. Despite showing promising results, heterogeneity in past systematic reviews remains high.

Objective

To systematically review and assess the association between patient outcomes and hospital-at-home interventions as a substitute for in-hospital stay for community-dwelling patients with a chronic disease who present to the emergency department and are offered at least 1 home visit from a nurse and/or physician.

Data sources

Databases were searched from date of inception to March 4, 2019. The databases were Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO, CINAHL, Health Technology Assessment, the Cochrane Library, OVID Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

Study selection

Randomized clinical trials in which the experimental group received hospital-at-home interventions and the control group received the usual in-hospital care. Patients were 18 years or older with a chronic disease who presented to the emergency department and received home visits from a nurse or physician.

Data extraction and synthesis

Risk of bias was assessed, and a meta-analysis was conducted for outcomes that were reported by at least 2 studies using comparable measures. Risk ratios (RRs) were reported for binary outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes. Narrative synthesis was performed for other outcomes.

Main outcomes and measures

Outcomes of interest were patient outcomes, which included mortality, long-term care admission, readmission, length of treatment, out-of-pocket costs, depression and anxiety, quality of life, patient satisfaction, caregiver stress, cognitive status, nutrition, morbidity due to hospitalization, functional status, and neurological deficits.

Results

Nine studies were included, providing data on 959 participants (median age, 71.0 years [interquartile range, 70.0-79.9 years]; 613 men [63.9%]; 346 women [36.1%]). Mortality did not differ between the hospital-at-home and the in-hospital care groups (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.61-1.15; I2 = 0%). Risk of readmission was lower (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.95; I2 = 31%) and length of treatment was longer in the hospital-at-home group than in the in-hospital group (mean difference, 5.45 days; 95% CI, 1.91-8.97 days; I2 = 87%). In addition, the hospital-at-home group had a lower risk of long-term care admission than the in-hospital care group (RR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.74; I2 = 0%). Patients who received hospital-at-home interventions had lower depression and anxiety than those who remained in-hospital, but there was no difference in functional status. Other patient outcomes showed mixed results.

Conclusions and relevance

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that hospital-at-home interventions represent a viable substitute to an in-hospital stay for patients with chronic diseases who present to the emergency department and who have at least 1 visit from a nurse or physician. Although the heterogeneity of the findings remained high for some outcomes, particularly for length of treatment, the heterogeneity of this study was comparable to that of past reviews and further explored.

SUBMITTER: Arsenault-Lapierre G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8188269 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The recent literature reports promising results from using intelligent systems to support decision making in healthcare operations. Using these systems may lead to improved diagnostic and treatment protocols and to predict hospital bed demand. Predicting hospital bed demand in emergency department (ED) attendances could help resource allocation and reduce pressure on busy hospitals. However, there is still limited knowledge on whether intelligent systems can operate as fully autonomous, user-independent systems. OBJECTIVE:Compare the performance of a computer-based algorithm and humans in predicting hospital bed demand (admissions and discharges) based on the initial SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan) records of the ED. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study that compared the performance of humans and machines in predicting hospital bed demand from an ED. It considered electronic medical records (EMR) of 9030 patients (230 used as a testing set, and hence evaluated both by humans and by an algorithm, and 8800 used as a training set exclusively by the algorithm) who visited the ED of a tertiary care and teaching public hospital located in Porto Alegre, Brazil between January and December 2014. The machine role was played by Support Vector Machine Classifier and the human prediction was performed by four ED physicians. Predictions were compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). RESULTS:All graders achieved similar accuracies. The accuracy by AUROC for the testing set was 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.77-0.87], 0.80 (95% CI: 0.75-0.85), 0.76 (95% CI: 0.71-0.81) for novice physicians, machine, experienced physicians, respectively. Processing time per test EMR was 0.00812±0.0009 seconds. In contrast, novice physicians took on average 156.80 seconds per test EMR, while experienced physicians took on average 56.40 seconds per test EMR. CONCLUSIONS:Our data indicated that the system could predict patient admission or discharge states with 80% accuracy, which was similar the performance of novice and experienced physicians. These results suggested that the algorithm could operate as an autonomous and independent system to complete this task.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the trend of rising Emergency Department (ED) visits over the past decade, researchers have observed drastic declines in number of ED visits due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of the current study was to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and governor mandated Stay at Home Order on ED super utilizers.MethodsThis was a retrospective chart review of patients presenting to the 12 emergency departments of the Franciscan Mission of Our Lady Hospital System in Louisiana between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020. Patients who were 18 years of age or older and had four ED visits within a one-year period (2018, 2019, or 2020) were classified as super-utilizers. We examined number and category of visits for the baseline period (January 2018 - March 2020), the governor's Stay at Home Order, and the subsequent Reopening Phases through December 31, 2020.ResultsThe number of visits by super utilizers decreased by over 16% when the Stay at Home Order was issued. The average number of visits per week rose from 1010.63 during the Stay at Home Order to 1198.09 after the Stay at Home Order was lifted, but they did not return to Pre-COVID levels of approximately 1400 visits per week in 2018 and 2019. When categories of visits were examined, this trend was found for emergent visits (p < 0.001) and visits related to injuries (p < 0.001). Non-emergent visits declined during the Stay at Home Order compared to the baseline period (p < 0.001), and did not increase significantly during reopening compared to the Stay at Home Order (p = 0.87). There were no changes in number of visits for psychiatric purposes, alcohol use, or drug use during the pandemic.ConclusionsSignificant declines in emergent visits raise concerns that individuals who needed ED treatment did not seek it due to COVID-19. However, the finding that super utilizers with non-emergent visits continued to visit the ED less after the Stay at Home Order was lifted raises questions for future research that may inform policy and interventions for inappropriate ED use.