A trial of early discharge with homecare compared to conventional hospital care for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting

Inpatient-level care at home delivered by virtual wards and hospital at home: a systematic review and meta-analysis of complex interventions and their components

BACKGROUND

Technology-enabled inpatient-level care at home services, such as virtual wards and hospital at home, are being rapidly implemented. This is the first systematic review to link the components of these service delivery innovations to evidence of effectiveness to explore implications for practice and research.

METHODS

For this review (registered here https://osf.io/je39y ), we searched Cochrane-recommended multiple databases up to 30 November 2022 and additional resources for randomised and non-randomised studies that compared technology-enabled inpatient-level care at home with hospital-based inpatient care. We classified interventions into care model groups using three key components: clinical activities, workforce, and technology. We synthesised evidence by these groups quantitatively or narratively for mortality, hospital readmissions, cost-effectiveness and length of stay.

RESULTS

We include 69 studies: 38 randomised studies (6413 participants; largely judged as low or unclear risk of bias) and 31 non-randomised studies (31,950 participants; largely judged at serious or critical risk of bias). The 69 studies described 63 interventions which formed eight model groups. Most models, regardless of using low- or high-intensity technology, may have similar or reduced hospital readmission risk compared with hospital-based inpatient care (low-certainty evidence from randomised trials). For mortality, most models had uncertain or unavailable evidence. Two exceptions were low technology-enabled models that involve hospital- and community-based professionals, they may have similar mortality risk compared with hospital-based inpatient care (low- or moderate-certainty evidence from randomised trials). Cost-effectiveness evidence is unavailable for high technology-enabled models, but sparse evidence suggests the low technology-enabled multidisciplinary care delivered by hospital-based teams appears more cost-effective than hospital-based care for those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence suggests that none of technology-enabled care at home models we explored put people at higher risk of readmission compared with hospital-based care. Where limited evidence on mortality is available, there appears to be no additional risk of mortality due to use of technology-enabled at home models. It is unclear whether inpatient-level care at home using higher levels of technology confers additional benefits. Further research should focus on clearly defined interventions in high-priority populations and include comparative cost-effectiveness evaluation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/je39y .

The risk of overestimating cost savings from hospital-at-home schemes: A literature review

BACKGROUND

The concept of hospital-at-home means that home treatment is provided to patients who would otherwise have been treated in the hospital. This may lead to lower costs, but estimates of savings may be overstated if inpatient hospital costs are priced incorrectly.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of cost analyses of hospital-at-home studies for acute conditions published from 1996 through 2019 and to present an overview of evidence.

DESIGN

Literature review DATA SOURCES: The PubMed and NHS EED databases were searched.

REVIEW METHODS

The overall quality of studies was evaluated based on Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) score, design, sample size, alignment of cost calculation with study perspective, time horizon, use of tariffs or real resource use and clarity of calculations. Furthermore, we systematically assessed whether cost savings were likely to be overestimated, based on criteria about the costing of inpatient hospital days, informal care costs and bias.

RESULTS

We identified 48 studies. The average QHES score was 60 out of a maximum of 100 points. Almost all studies violated one or more criteria for the risk of overestimation of cost savings. The most frequent problems were the use of average unit prices per inpatient day (not taking into account the decreasing intensity of care) and biased designs. Most studies found cost differences in favour of hospital-at-home; the range varied from savings of €8773 to a cost increase of €2316 per patient.

CONCLUSION

Overall quality of studies was not good, with some exceptions. Many cost savings were probably overestimated.

Early discharge hospital at home

BACKGROUND

Early discharge hospital at home is a service that provides active treatment by healthcare professionals in the patient's home for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital inpatient care. This is an update of a Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and cost of managing patients with early discharge hospital at home compared with inpatient hospital care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to 9 January 2017: the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and EconLit. We searched clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing early discharge hospital at home with acute hospital inpatient care for adults. We excluded obstetric, paediatric and mental health hospital at home schemes.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for the most important outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 trials (N = 4746), six of them new for this update, mainly conducted in high-income countries. We judged most of the studies to have a low or unclear risk of bias. The intervention was delivered by hospital outreach services (17 trials), community-based services (11 trials), and was co-ordinated by a hospital-based stroke team or physician in conjunction with community-based services in four trials.Studies recruiting people recovering from strokeEarly discharge hospital at home probably makes little or no difference to mortality at three to six months (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.48, N = 1114, 11 trials, moderate-certainty evidence) and may make little or no difference to the risk of hospital readmission (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.66, N = 345, 5 trials, low-certainty evidence). Hospital at home may lower the risk of living in institutional setting at six months (RR 0.63, 96% CI 0.40 to 0.98; N = 574, 4 trials, low-certainty evidence) and might slightly improve patient satisfaction (N = 795, low-certainty evidence). Hospital at home probably reduces hospital length of stay, as moderate-certainty evidence found that people assigned to hospital at home are discharged from the intervention about seven days earlier than people receiving inpatient care (95% CI 10.19 to 3.17 days earlier, N = 528, 4 trials). It is uncertain whether hospital at home has an effect on cost (very low-certainty evidence).Studies recruiting people with a mix of medical conditionsEarly discharge hospital at home probably makes little or no difference to mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.49; N = 1247, 8 trials, moderate-certainty evidence). In people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) there was insufficient information to determine the effect of these two approaches on mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.12, N = 496, 5 trials, low-certainty evidence). The intervention probably increases the risk of hospital readmission in a mix of medical conditions, although the results are also compatible with no difference and a relatively large increase in the risk of readmission (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.58, N = 1276, 9 trials, moderate-certainty evidence). Early discharge hospital at home may decrease the risk of readmission for people with COPD (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.13, N = 496, 5 trials low-certainty evidence). Hospital at home may lower the risk of living in an institutional setting (RR 0.69, 0.48 to 0.99; N = 484, 3 trials, low-certainty evidence). The intervention might slightly improve patient satisfaction (N = 900, low-certainty evidence). The effect of early discharge hospital at home on hospital length of stay for older patients with a mix of conditions ranged from a reduction of 20 days to a reduction of less than half a day (moderate-certainty evidence, N = 767). It is uncertain whether hospital at home has an effect on cost (very low-certainty evidence).Studies recruiting people undergoing elective surgeryThree studies did not report higher rates of mortality with hospital at home compared with inpatient care (data not pooled, N = 856, low-certainty evidence; mainly orthopaedic surgery). Hospital at home may lead to little or no difference in readmission to hospital for people who were mainly recovering from orthopaedic surgery (N = 1229, low-certainty evidence). We could not establish the effects of hospital at home on the risk of living in institutional care, due to a lack of data. The intervention might slightly improve patient satisfaction (N = 1229, low-certainty evidence). People recovering from orthopaedic surgery allocated to early discharge hospital at home were discharged from the intervention on average four days earlier than people allocated to usual inpatient care (4.44 days earlier, 95% CI 6.37 to 2.51 days earlier, , N = 411, 4 trials, moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether hospital at home has an effect on cost (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite increasing interest in the potential of early discharge hospital at home services as a less expensive alternative to inpatient care, this review provides insufficient evidence of economic benefit (through a reduction in hospital length of stay) or improved health outcomes.

A Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Fast-Track Recovery after Cardiac Surgery

<p><b>Background:</b> In the last 5 decades, the care of cardiac surgical patients has improved with the aid of strategies aimed at facilitating patient recovery. One of the innovations in this context is "fast-tracking" or "rapid recovery." This process refers to all interventions that aim to shorten a patient's stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) through accelerating the patient's transfer to a step-down or telemetry unit and to the general ward.</p><p><b>Methods:</b> Patients were allocated to 2 groups. The fast-track group (n = 84) went through an independent theatre recovery unit (TRU). The patients were then transferred on the same day to an intermediate care unit and transferred on the following day to the ward. The intensive care group (52 patients) went to the ICU for at least 1 day, after which they were transferred to the ward.</p><p><b>Results and Discussion:</b> The fast-track pathway significantly reduced the length of stay (LOS) in an intensive care facility (<i>P</i> < .001). The duration of intubation was reduced from a median of 4.08 hours (range, 1.17-13.17 hours) in the intensive care group to 2.75 hours (range, 0.25-18.57 hours) in the fast-track group (<i>P</i> < .001). However, the median values for total hospital LOS, incidences of complications, reintubation, and readmission were similar for the 2 groups. The incidence of failure in the fast-track group was 10%. The mean (SD) cost of the perioperative care was �4182 � �2284 ($6683 � 3650) for the fast-track patients, compared with �4553 � �1355 ($7277 � $2165) for the intensive care group.</p><p><b>Conclusion:</b> Fast-track recovery after cardiac surgery decreases the intensive care LOS and the total duration of intubation. It is a cost-effective strategy compared with conventional recovery protocols; however, it does not reduce the total hospital LOS or the incidence of complications.</p>

Avoiding hospital admission through provision of hospital care at home: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data

BACKGROUND

Avoidance of admission through provision of hospital care at home is a scheme whereby health care professionals provide active treatment in the patient's home for a condition that would otherwise require inpatient treatment in an acute care hospital. We sought to compare the effectiveness of this method of caring for patients with that type of in-hospital care.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and EconLit databases and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group register from the earliest date in each database until January 2008. We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated a service providing an alternative to admission to an acute care hospital. We excluded trials in which the program did not offer a substitute for inpatient care. We performed meta-analyses for trials for which the study populations had similar characteristics and for which common outcomes had been measured.

RESULTS

We included 10 randomized trials (with a total of 1327 patients) in our systematic review. Seven of these trials (with a total of 969 patients) were deemed eligible for meta-analysis of individual patient data, but we were able to obtain data for only 5 of these trials (with a total of 844 patients [87%]). There was no significant difference in mortality at 3 months for patients who received hospital care at home (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.09, p = 0.15). However, at 6 months, mortality was significantly lower for these patients (adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.87, p = 0.005). Admissions to hospital were greater, but not significantly so, for patients receiving hospital care at home (adjusted HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.96-2.33, p = 0.08). Patients receiving hospital care at home reported greater satisfaction than those receiving inpatient care. These programs were less expensive than admission to an acute care hospital ward when the analysis was restricted to treatment actually received and when the costs of informal care were excluded.

INTERPRETATION

For selected patients, avoiding admission through provision of hospital care at home yielded similar outcomes to inpatient care, at a similar or lower cost.

Early discharge hospital at home

BACKGROUND

'Early discharge hospital at home' is a service that provides active treatment by health care professionals in the patient's home for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital in-patient care. If hospital at home were not available then the patient would remain in an acute hospital ward.

OBJECTIVES

To determine, in the context of a systematic review and meta-analysis, the effectiveness and cost of managing patients with early discharge hospital at home compared with in-patient hospital care.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Register , MEDLINE (1950 to 2008), EMBASE (1980 to 2008), CINAHL (1982 to 2008) and EconLit through to January 2008. We checked the reference lists of articles identified for potentially relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials recruiting patients aged 18 years and over. Studies comparing early discharge hospital at home with acute hospital in-patient care. Evaluations of obstetric, paediatric and mental health hospital at home schemes are excluded from this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Our statistical analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. We requested individual patient data (IPD) from trialists, and relied on published data when we did not receive trial data sets or the IPD did not include the relevant outcomes. For the IPD meta-analysis, where at least one event was reported in both study groups in a trial, Cox regression models were used to calculate the log hazard ratio and its standard error for mortality and readmission separately for each data set. The calculated log hazard ratios were combined using fixed-effect inverse variance meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six trials were included in this review [n = 3967]; 21 were eligible for the IPD meta-analysis and 13 of the 21 trials contributed data [1899/2872; 66%]. For patients recovering from a stroke and elderly patients with a mix of conditions there was insufficient evidence of a difference in mortality between groups (adjusted HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.91; N = 494; and adjusted HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.61; N = 978). Readmission rates were significantly increased for elderly patients with a mix of conditions allocated to hospital at home (adjusted HR 1.57; 95% CI 1.10 to 2.24; N = 705). For patients recovering from a stroke and elderly patients with a mix of conditions respectively, significantly fewer people allocated to hospital at home were in residential care at follow up (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.98; N = 4 trials; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.99; N =3 trials). Patients reported increased satisfaction with early discharge hospital at home. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for readmission between groups in trials recruiting patients recovering from surgery. Evidence on cost savings was mixed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite increasing interest in the potential of early discharge hospital at home services as a cheaper alternative to in-patient care, this review provides insufficient objective evidence of economic benefit or improved health outcomes.