Choosing Inpatient vs Home Treatment: Why Patients Accept or Decline Hospital at Home.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Hospital at home (HaH) provides interdisciplinary acute care in the home as a substitute for inpatient hospitalization. Studies have demonstrated that HaH care is associated with better quality care, fewer complications, and better patient and caregiver experience. Still, some patients decline HaH. The objective of the study was to characterize patients who accept vs decline HaH care and describe reasons for their decisions in the context of a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation demonstration of HaH. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 442 patients with Medicare or other eligible insurance, 18 years or older, who met study eligibility criteria were offered HaH at Mount Sinai Hospitals in New York, NY, between September 1, 2014, and August 31, 2017. MEASUREMENTS: Reasons for accepting or declining HaH were recorded. Age, sex, insurance type, and admission diagnoses of HaH acceptors and refusers were compared in univariate analyses. RESULTS: Of the 442 patients offered HaH, 66.7% accepted. Main reasons for enrolling in HaH included being more comfortable at home (78.2%) and being near family (40.7%). Specific reasons given for refusing HaH included preferring in-hospital care (15.0%) and concern that HaH would not meet care needs (12.9%). CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of patients offered HaH care opted to receive it. The reasons for declining HaH provided by those who chose not to participate should be considered for quality improvement, and reasons for acceptance may be helpful in marketing and other efforts to promote HaH participation. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1579-1583, 2020.

The effect of adapting Hospital at Home to facilitate implementation and sustainment on program drift or voltage drop.

BACKGROUND: Translating evidence-based interventions from study conditions to actual practice necessarily requires adaptation. We implemented an evidence-based Hospital at Home (HaH) intervention and evaluated whether adaptations could avoid diminished benefit from "voltage drop" (decreased benefit when interventions are applied under more heterogeneous conditions than existing in studies) or "program drift." (decreased benefit arising from deviations from study protocols). METHODS: Patients were enrolled in HaH over a 6-month pilot period followed by nine quarters of implementation activity. The program retained core components of the original evidence-based HaH model, but adaptations were made at inception and throughout the implementation. These adaptations were coded as to who made them, what was modified, for whom the adaptations were made, and the nature of the adaptations. We collected information on length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits, escalations to the hospital, and patient ratings of care. Outcomes were assessed by quarter of admission. Selected outcomes were tracked and fed back to the program leadership. We used logistic or linear regression with an independent variable included for the numerical quarter of enrollment after the initial 6-month pilot phase. Models controlled for season and for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Adaptations were made throughout the implementation period. The nature of adaptations was most commonly to add or to substitute new program elements. HaH services substituting for a hospital stay were received by 295 patients (a mean of 33, range 11-44, per quarter). A small effect of quarter from program inception was seen for escalations (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.18, p = 0.03), but no effect was observed for LOS (- 0.007 days/quarter; SE 0.02, p = 0.75), 30 day ED visit (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01, p = 0.09), 30-day readmission (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08, p = 0.99), or patient rating of overall hospital care (OR for highest overall rating 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05, p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: We made adaptations to HaH at inception and over the course of implementation. Our findings indicate that adaptations to evidence-based programs may avoid diminished benefits due to potential 'program drift' or 'voltage drop.' TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable. This study is not a clinical trial by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) definition because it is an observational study "in which the assignment of the medical intervention is not at the discretion of the investigator."

Hospital at Home-Plus: A Platform of Facility-Based Care.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the evolution of a hospital at home (HaH) program to a HaH with a 30-day posthospitalization transition period (HaH-Plus) and results of a retrospective review of cases. DESIGN: After launching HaH-Plus, we used the same interdisciplinary clinical team to provide acute home-based care for a broader range of home-based acute-level services than originally conceived in the Hospital at Home model. These included a palliative care unit at home (PCUaH), an observation unit at home (OUaH), a post-acute care rehabilitation at home (RaH), and a program for the hospital averse - those patients needing to be in the hospital but who refuse. SETTING: Urban health system. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals 18 years or older residing in specified catchment area with Medicare fee-for-service or accepted Medicare/Medicaid Advantage plans requiring facility-based care. INTERVENTION: Provision of facility-based acute-level care at home to 685 participants. MEASUREMENTS: Length of stay, readmission, and mortality. RESULTS: HaH-Plus cared for 685 individuals. The PCUaH had the oldest participants (mean age 87), and all groups were predominantly female and dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. Diagnoses and length of stay were similar in all groups except that those in RaH had a larger group of diagnoses, than those accepted in to HaH-Plus and those in OUaH had a shorter stay. Rate of readmission was highest for RaH (19%). Mortality during the active treatment episode was highest for PCUaH and hospital averse as compared to HaH-Plus, OUaH and RaH. CONCLUSION: Providing a broader range of facility-based care in the home has significant advantages for patients and increases the scalability of HaH. Developing a spectrum of services was possible by leveraging a robust, 24-hour HaH team. Community- and home-based care could become a greater part of the U.S. healthcare system if a platform of HaH services along with advances in technology and payment models were developed. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:596-602, 2019.