Hospital-level care at home for patients with acute respiratory disease: A descriptive analysis.

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.

Prevalence and Causes of Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Patients Under Investigation for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required clinicians to care for a disease with evolving characteristics while also adhering to care changes (e.g., physical distancing practices) that might lead to diagnostic errors (DEs). OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of DEs and their causes among patients hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Eight medical centers affiliated with the Hospital Medicine ReEngineering Network (HOMERuN). TARGET POPULATION: Adults hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 infection between February and July 2020. MEASUREMENTS: We randomly selected up to 8 cases per site per month for review, with each case reviewed by two clinicians to determine whether a DE (defined as a missed or delayed diagnosis) occurred, and whether any diagnostic process faults took place. We used bivariable statistics to compare patients with and without DE and multivariable models to determine which process faults or patient factors were associated with DEs. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-seven patient charts underwent review, of which 36 (14%) had a diagnostic error. Patients with and without DE were statistically similar in terms of socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, risk factors for COVID-19, and COVID-19 test turnaround time and eventual positivity. Most common diagnostic process faults contributing to DE were problems with clinical assessment, testing choices, history taking, and physical examination (all p < 0.01). Diagnostic process faults associated with policies and procedures related to COVID-19 were not associated with DE risk. Fourteen patients (35.9% of patients with errors and 5.4% overall) suffered harm or death due to diagnostic error. LIMITATIONS: Results are limited by available documentation and do not capture communication between providers and patients. CONCLUSION: Among PUI patients, DEs were common and not associated with pandemic-related care changes, suggesting the importance of more general diagnostic process gaps in error propagation.

Remote vs In-home Physician Visits for Hospital-Level Care at Home: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

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.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention and diagnosis in COVID-19: Practice patterns and outcomes at 33 hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Early reports of increased thrombosis risk with SARS-CoV-2 infection led to changes in venous thromboembolism (VTE) management. Real-world data on the prevalence, efficacy and harms of these changes informs best practices. OBJECTIVE: Define practice patterns and clinical outcomes related to VTE diagnosis, prevention, and management in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) using a multi-hospital US sample. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study of 1121 patients admitted to 33 hospitals, exposure was dose of anticoagulant prescribed for VTE prophylaxis (standard, intensified, therapeutic), and primary outcome was VTE (pulmonary embolism [PE] and deep vein thrombosis [DVT]); secondary outcomes were PE, DVT, arterial thromboembolism (ATE), and bleeding events. Multivariable logistic regression models accounting for clustering by site and adjusted for risk factors were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs). Inverse probability weighting was used to account for confounding by indication. RESULTS: 1121 patients (mean age 60 ± 18, 47% female) admitted with COVID-19 between February 2, 2020 and December 31, 2020 to 33 US hospitals were included. Pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis was prescribed in 86%. Forty-seven patients (4.2%) had PE, 51 (4.6%) had DVT, and 23 (2.1%) had ATE. Forty-six patients (4.1%) had major bleeding and 46 (4.1%) had clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Compared to standard prophylaxis, adjusted odds of VTE were 0.67 (95% CI 0.21-2.1) with no prophylaxis, 1.0 (95% CI 0.06-17) with intensified, and 3.0 (95% CI 0.89-10) with therapeutic. Adjusted odds of bleeding with no prophylaxis were 5.6 (95% CI 3.0-11) and 5.3 (95% CI 3.0-10) with therapeutic (no events on intensified dosing). CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a 3-fold increased odds of VTE and 5-fold increased odds of bleeding. While higher bleeding rates with high-intensity prophylaxis were likely due to full-dose anticoagulation, we conclude that high thrombosis rates were due to clinical concern for thrombosis before formal diagnosis.

A Patient-Centered Environmental Scan of Inpatient Visitor Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Researchers and patients conducted an environmental scan of policy documents and public-facing websites and abstracted data to describe COVID-19 adult inpatient visitor restrictions at 70 academic medical centers. We identified variations in how centers described and operationalized visitor policies. Then, we used the nominal group technique process to identify patient-centered information gaps in visitor policies and provide key recommendations for improvement. Recommendations were categorized into the following domains: 1) provision of comprehensive, consistent, and clear information; 2) accessible information for patients with limited English proficiency and health literacy; 3) COVID-19 related considerations; and 4) care team member methods of communication.

Discharge Practices for COVID-19 Patients: Rapid Review of Published Guidance and Synthesis of Documents and Practices at 22 US Academic Medical Centers.

BACKGROUND: There are currently no evidence-based guidelines that provide standardized criteria for the discharge of COVID-19 patients from the hospital. OBJECTIVE: To address this gap in practice guidance, we reviewed published guidance and collected discharge protocols and procedures to identify and synthesize common practices. DESIGN: Rapid review of existing guidance from US and non-US public health organizations and professional societies and qualitative review using content analysis of discharge documents collected from a national sample of US academic medical centers with follow-up survey of hospital leaders SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed 65 websites for major professional societies and public health organizations and collected documents from 22 Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) in the US participating in the HOspital MEdicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN). RESULTS: We synthesized data regarding common practices around 5 major domains: (1) isolation and transmission mitigation; (2) criteria for discharge to non-home settings including skilled nursing, assisted living, or homeless; (3) clinical criteria for discharge including oxygenation levels, fever, and symptom improvement; (4) social support and ability to perform activities of daily living; (5) post-discharge instructions, monitoring, and follow-up. LIMITATIONS: We used streamlined methods for rapid review of published guidance and collected discharge documents only in a focused sample of US academic medical centers. CONCLUSION: AMCs studied showed strong consensus on discharge practices for COVID-19 patients related to post-discharge isolation and transmission mitigation for home and non-home settings. There was high concordance among AMCs that discharge practices should address COVID-19-specific factors in clinical, functional, and post-discharge monitoring domains although definitions and details varied.

COVID-19 coagulopathy and thrombosis: Analysis of hospital protocols in response to the rapidly evolving pandemic.

As the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic spread to the US, so too did descriptions of an associated coagulopathy and thrombotic complications. Hospitals created institutional protocols for inpatient management of COVID-19 coagulopathy and thrombosis in response to this developing data. We collected and analyzed protocols from 21 US academic medical centers developed between January and May 2020. We found greatest consensus on recommendations for heparin-based pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in COVID-19 patients without contraindications. Protocols differed regarding incorporation of D-dimer tests, dosing of VTE prophylaxis, indications for post-discharge pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis, how to evaluate for VTE, and the use of empiric therapeutic anticoagulation. These findings support ongoing efforts to establish international, evidence-based guidelines.