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:BackgroundHospitals 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.ObjectiveDetermine if home hospital care reduces cost while maintaining quality, safety, and patient experience.DesignRandomized controlled trial.ParticipantsAdults admitted via the emergency department with any infection or exacerbation of heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or asthma.InterventionHome hospital care, including nurse and physician home visits, intravenous medications, continuous monitoring, video communication, and point-of-care testing.Main measuresPrimary outcome was direct cost of the acute care episode. Secondary outcomes included utilization, 30-day cost, physical activity, and patient experience.Key resultsNine 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.ConclusionsThe 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: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.