ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Home hospital (HH) is hospital-level substitutive care delivered at home for acutely ill patients who would traditionally be cared for in the hospital. Despite HH programs operating successfully for years, and scientific evidence of similar or better outcomes compared to bricks and mortar care, HH outcomes in the US for respiratory disease have not been evaluated. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do outcomes differ between patients admitted to HH with acute respiratory illness vs other acute general medical conditions? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Retrospective evaluation of prospectively collected data of patients admitted to HH (2017-21). We compared patients requiring admission with respiratory disease (asthma exacerbation (26%), acute exacerbation for COPD [AECOPD] (33%), and non-COVID-19 pneumonia [PNA] (41%)) to all other HH patients. During HH, patients received 2 nurse and 1 physician visit daily, intravenous medications, advanced respiratory therapies, and continuous heart and respiratory rate monitoring. MAIN OUTCOMES: acute and post-acute utilization and safety. RESULTS: We analyzed 1,031 patients; 24% were admitted for respiratory disease. Patients with and without respiratory disease were similar: mean age 68 (SD, 17), 62% female, and 48% White. Respiratory patients were more often active smokers (21% vs 9%; p<0.001). FEV1/FVC ≤70 in 80% of cases; 28% had severe or very severe obstructive pattern (n=118). During HH, respiratory patients had less utilization: length of stay (mean days, 3.4 vs 4.6), laboratory orders (median, 0 vs 2), intravenous medication (43% vs 73%) and specialist consultation (2% vs 7%) (p all <0.001). 96% of patients completed the full admission at home with no mortality in the respiratory group. Within 30-days of discharge, both groups had similar readmission, ED presentation and mortality rates. INTERPRETATION: HH is as safe and effective for patients with acute respiratory disease as for those with other acute general medical conditions. If scaled, it can generate significant high-value capacity for health systems and communities, with opportunities to advance the complexity of care delivered.
ABSTRACT
Importance: Home 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. Objective: To compare remote and in-home physician care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 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. Interventions: All 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 Measures: The 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. Results: A 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 Relevance: In 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 Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04080570.