Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Intern Med J ; 52(5): 880-884, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1832083

ABSTRACT

Doctors, authors, funders and hospital managers should take care to distinguish the important differences between hospital in the home (HIH) and outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) services. HIH is an inpatient service delivered at home usually by (or on behalf of) hospitals, which aims to substitute for a traditional inpatient stay. It does so by delivering a wide range of hospital treatments to patients at home, or residential aged care, using hospital medical and nursing staff, delivery technologies and venous access, pharmacy, radiology and pathology, and a structured system of on call and governance. OPAT is an outpatient service, usually run through infectious diseases physicians' offices or departments. Most care is delivered in infusion centres and requires patients to travel for their care. Generally, there is no after-hours support. HIH has supplanted the role of OPAT due to improved governance and a wider clinical and severity scope. HIH is accessible from hospital emergency departments or directly from residential aged care facilities. Inpatient capacity has been expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is evidence that both HIH and OPAT can successfully treat their selected patient groups. There are no head-to-head studies, but in observational comparisons there might be more adverse drug events in OPAT. OPAT places a greater onus of care, supervision and travel needs on the patient and family. Where HIH is not available, OPAT may remain an alternative for some patients. However, HIH seeks to redefine the delivery of inpatient care away from the location of care.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Aged , Ambulatory Care , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Anti-Infective Agents/therapeutic use , Hospitals , Humans , Infusions, Parenteral , Outpatients , Pandemics
2.
Expert Rev Hematol ; 14(12): 1129-1135, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1577548

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Multiple Myeloma (MM) accounts for 1-2% of all malignancies but is the second most common hematological malignancy. It is characterized by a proliferation of malignant plasma cells. The treatment paradigm of MM in Australia is traditionally hospital-based, complex, and costly. While MM comprises 1-2% of cancer diagnoses, it appears in the top 10 cancer diagnoses requiring hospital admission. The cumulative time spent receiving treatment is a significant burden for patients. The ability to receive treatment at home and maximize time away from hospital-based settings is a key preference for patients receiving anticancer therapies over a prolonged period of time. METHODS: The Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital's combined Clinical Hematology Unit has collaborated with their Hospital in the Home departments to develop several innovative programs to address this. RESULTS: We describe our current active programs and potential developments in home-based MM therapy. CONCLUSION: We have enabled large numbers of patients to receive complex therapies in their own home and the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the pace of the roll out without any compromise in safety. We anticipate that the next raft of immunotherapies will be able to transition into the @Home treatment setting in the coming years.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Multiple Myeloma , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects , Bortezomib/therapeutic use , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Humans , Multiple Myeloma/drug therapy , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL