Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Background

Substitutive 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.

Objective

Elucidate and explain patient perceptions of home hospital versus traditional hospital care to better describe the different perceptions of care in both settings.

Design

Qualitative evaluation of a randomized controlled trial.

Participants

36 hospitalized patients (19 home; 17 control).

Intervention

Traditional hospital ("control") versus home hospital ("home"), including nurse and physician home visits, intravenous medications, remote monitoring, video communication, and point-of-care testing.

Approach

We 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 results

Themes 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.

Conclusions

Compared 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 registration

NCT03203759.

SUBMITTER: Levine DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8298744 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description: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?<?0.01) and less often received consultations (0% vs. 27%; p?=?0.04). Home patients were more physically active (median minutes, 209 vs. 78; p?<?0.01), with a trend toward more sleep. No adverse events occurred in home patients, one occurred in control patients. Median direct cost for the acute care plus 30-day post-discharge period for home patients was 67% (IQR, 77%; p?<?0.01) lower, with trends toward less use of home-care services (22% vs. 55%; p?=?0.08) and fewer readmissions (11% vs. 36%; p?=?0.32). Patient experience was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS:The use of substitutive home-hospitalization compared to in-hospital usual care reduced cost and utilization and improved physical activity. No significant differences in quality, safety, and patient experience were noted, with more definitive results awaiting a larger trial. Trial Registration NCT02864420.

Project description:BackgroundThe policy in a number of countries is to provide people with a terminal illness the choice of dying at home. This policy is supported by surveys indicating that the general public and people with a terminal illness would prefer to receive end-of-life care at home. This is the fourth update of the original review.ObjectivesTo determine if providing home-based end-of-life care reduces the likelihood of dying in hospital and what effect this has on patients' symptoms, quality of life, health service costs, and caregivers, compared with inpatient hospital or hospice care.Search methodsWe searched the following databases until April 2015: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R) (from 1950), EMBASE (from 1980), CINAHL (from 1982), and EconLit (from 1969). We checked the reference lists of potentially relevant articles identified and handsearched palliative care publications, clinical trials registries, and a database of systematic reviews for related trials (PDQ-Evidence 2015).Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials, interrupted time series, or controlled before and after studies evaluating the effectiveness of home-based end-of-life care with inpatient hospital or hospice care for people aged 18 years and older.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We combined the published data for dichotomous outcomes using fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis. When combining outcome data was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies.Main resultsWe included four trials in this review and did not identify new studies from the search in April 2015. Home-based end-of-life care increased the likelihood of dying at home compared with usual care (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.55, P = 0.0002; Chi(2) = 1.72, df = 2, P = 0.42, I(2) = 0%; 3 trials; N = 652; high quality evidence). Admission to hospital while receiving home-based end-of-life care varied between trials, and this was reflected by a high level of statistical heterogeneity in this analysis (range RR 0.62 to RR 2.61; 4 trials; N = 823; moderate quality evidence). Home-based end-of-life care may slightly improve patient satisfaction at one-month follow-up and reduce it at six-month follow-up (2 trials; low quality evidence). The effect on caregivers is uncertain (2 trials; low quality evidence). The intervention may slightly reduce healthcare costs (2 trials, low quality evidence). No trial reported costs to patients and caregivers.Authors' conclusionsThe evidence included in this review supports the use of home-based end-of-life care programmes for increasing the number of people who will die at home, although the numbers of people admitted to hospital while receiving end-of-life care should be monitored. Future research should systematically assess the impact of home-based end-of-life care on caregivers.

Project description:BackgroundRecent studies indicate inadequate nutritional care practices in healthcare institutions and identify several barriers to perform individualized nutritional care to older persons. Organisation of care can become rigid and standardised, thus failing to be respectful of and responsive to each person's needs and preferences. There is limited research exploring health professionals' views on how structure of care allows them to individualize nutritional care to older persons. In this study we aim to explore how healthcare professionals' experience providing individualised nutritional care within the organisational frames of acute geriatric hospital care and home care.MethodsSemi-structured interviews with 23 healthcare professionals from hospital acute geriatric care and home care. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis.ResultsTwo main themes and six sub-themes emerged from the material. Theme 1: 'Meeting patients with complex nutritional problems' with the sub-themes: 'It is much more complex than just not eating' and 'seeing nutrition as a part of the whole'. Theme 2: 'The structure of the nutritional care', with the sub-themes: 'Nutritional routines: Much ado, but for what?', 'lack of time to individualize nutritional care', 'lack of interdisciplinary collaboration in nutritional care' and 'meeting challenging situations with limited resources in home care'.ConclusionsThe healthcare professionals described having a high focus on and priority of nutritional care when caring for older persons. They did however find it challenging to practice individualized nutritional care due to the complexity of the patients' nutritional problems and constraints in the way nutritional care was organised. By describing the challenges the healthcare professionals face when trying to individualize the nutritional care, this study may provide important knowledge to health professionals and policy makers on how to decrease the gap between older patients' preferences for care and nutritional care practice.

Project description:IntroductionThere are personal and societal benefits from caregiving; however, caregiving can jeopardise caregivers' health. The Further Enabling Care at Home (FECH+) programme provides structured nurse support, through telephone outreach, to informal caregivers of older adults following discharge from acute hospital care to home. The trial aims to evaluate the efficacy of the FECH+ programme on caregivers' health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after care recipients' hospital discharge.Methods and analysisA multisite, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded baseline and outcome assessment and intention-to-treat analysis, adhering to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines will be conducted. Participants (N=925 dyads) comprising informal home caregiver (18 years or older) and care recipient (70 years or older) will be recruited when the care recipient is discharged from hospital. Caregivers of patients discharged from wards in three hospitals in Australia (one in Western Australia and two in Queensland) are eligible for inclusion. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of the two groups. The intervention group receive the FECH+ programme, which provides structured support and problem-solving for the caregiver after the care recipient's discharge, in addition to usual care. The control group receives usual care. The programme is delivered by a registered nurse and comprises six 30-45 min telephone support sessions over 6 months. The primary outcome is caregivers' HRQOL measured using the Assessment of Quality of Life-eight dimensions. Secondary outcomes include caregiver preparedness, strain and distress and use of healthcare services. Changes in HRQOL between groups will be compared using a mixed regression model that accounts for the correlation between repeated measurements.Ethics and disseminationParticipants will provide written informed consent. Ethics approvals have been obtained from Sir Charles Gairdner and Osborne Park Health Care Group, Curtin University, Griffith University, Gold Coast Health Service and government health data linkage services. Findings will be disseminated through presentations, peer-reviewed journals and conferences.Trial registration numberACTRN12620000060943.

Project description:BackgroundGoals of care (GOC) is a communication and decision-making process that occurs between a clinician and a patient (or surrogate decision-maker) during an episode of care to facilitate a plan of care that is consistent with the patient's preferences and values. Little is known about patients' experiences of these discussions.ObjectiveThis study explored patients' perspectives of the GOC discussion in the hospital setting.DesignAn explorative qualitative design was used within a social constructionist framework.ParticipantsAdult patients were recruited from six Australian hospitals across two states. Eligible patients had had a GOC discussion and they were identified by the senior nurse or their doctor for informed consent and interview.ApproachSemi-structured individual or dyadic interviews (with the carer/family member present) were conducted at the bedside or at the patient's home (for recently discharged patients). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed for themes.Key resultsThirty-eight patient interviews were completed. The key themes identified were (1) values and expectations, and (2) communication (sub-themes: (i) facilitators of the conversation, (ii) barriers to the conversation, and (iii) influence of the environment). Most patients viewed the conversation as necessary and valued having their preferences heard. Effective communication strategies and a safe, private setting were facilitators of the GOC discussion. Deficits in any of these key elements functioned as a barrier to the process.ConclusionsEffective communication, and patients' values and expectations set the stage for goals of care discussions; however, the environment plays a significant role. Communication skills training and education designed to equip clinicians to negotiate GOC interactions effectively are essential. These interventions must also be accompanied by systemic changes including building a culture supportive of GOC, clear policies and guidelines, and champions who facilitate uptake of GOC discussions.