Search

Background: Admission avoidance hospital at home provides active treatment by healthcare professionals in the patient's home for a condition that would otherwise require acute hospital inpatient care, and always for a limited time period. This is the fourth update of this review., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and cost of managing patients with admission avoidance hospital at home compared with inpatient hospital care., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL on 24 February 2022, and checked the reference lists of eligible articles. We sought ongoing and unpublished studies by searching ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, and by contacting providers and researchers involved in the field., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials recruiting participants aged 18 years and over. Studies comparing admission avoidance hospital at home with acute hospital inpatient care., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We performed meta-analysis for trials that compared similar interventions, reported comparable outcomes with sufficient data, and used individual patient data when available. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for the most important outcomes., Main Results: We included 20 randomised controlled trials with a total of 3100 participants; four trials recruited participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; two trials recruited participants recovering from a stroke; seven trials recruited participants with an acute medical condition who were mainly older; and the remaining trials recruited participants with a mix of conditions. We assessed the majority of the included studies as at low risk of selection, detection, and attrition bias, and unclear for selective reporting and performance bias. For an older population, admission avoidance hospital at home probably makes little or no difference on mortality at six months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.13; P = 0.30; I 2 = 0%; 5 trials, 1502 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); little or no difference on the likelihood of being readmitted to hospital after discharge from hospital at home or inpatient care within 3 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; P = 0.11; I 2 = 41%; 8 trials, 1757 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and probably reduces the likelihood of living in residential care at six months' follow-up (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.69; P < 0.001; I 2 = 67%; 4 trials, 1271 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Hospital at home probably results in little to no difference in patient's self-reported health status (2006 patients; moderate-certainty evidence). Satisfaction with health care received may be improved with admission avoidance hospital at home (1812 participants; low-certainty evidence); few studies reported the effect on caregivers. Hospital at home reduced the initial average hospital length of stay (2036 participants; low-certainty evidence), which ranged from 4.1 to 18.5 days in the hospital group and 1.2 to 5.1 days in the hospital at home group. Hospital at home length of stay ranged from an average of 3 to 20.7 days (hospital at home group only). Admission avoidance hospital at home probably reduces costs to the health service compared with hospital admission (2148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), though by a range of different amounts and using different methods to cost resource use, and there is some evidence that it decreases overall societal costs to six months' follow-up., Authors' Conclusions: Admission avoidance hospital at home, with the option of transfer to hospital, may provide an effective alternative to inpatient care for a select group of older people who have been referred for hospital admission. The intervention probably makes little or no difference to patient health outcomes; may improve satisfaction; probably reduces the likelihood of relocating to residential care; and probably decreases costs., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: Delivering hospital-level care with comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in the home is one approach to deal with the increased demand for bed-based hospital care, but clinical effectiveness is uncertain., Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness of admission avoidance hospital at home (HAH) with CGA for older persons., Design: Multisite randomized trial. (ISRCTN registry number: ISRCTN60477865)., Setting: 9 hospital and community sites in the United Kingdom., Patients: 1055 older persons who were medically unwell, were physiologically stable, and were referred for a hospital admission., Intervention: Admission avoidance HAH with CGA versus hospital admission with CGA when available using 2:1 randomization., Measurements: The primary outcome of living at home was measured at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were new admission to long-term residential care, death, health status, delirium, and patient satisfaction., Results: Participants had a mean age of 83.3 years (SD, 7.0). At 6-month follow-up, 528 of 672 (78.6%) participants in the CGA HAH group versus 247 of 328 (75.3%) participants in the hospital group were living at home (relative risk [RR], 1.05 [95% CI, 0.95 to 1.15]; P = 0.36); 114 of 673 (16.9%) versus 58 of 328 (17.7%) had died (RR, 0.98 [CI, 0.65 to 1.47]; P = 0.92); and 37 of 646 (5.7%) versus 27 of 311 (8.7%) were in long-term residential care (RR, 0.58 [CI, 0.45 to 0.76]; P < 0.001)., Limitation: The findings are most applicable to older persons referred from a hospital short-stay acute medical assessment unit; episodes of delirium may have been undetected., Conclusion: Admission avoidance HAH with CGA led to similar outcomes as hospital admission in the proportion of older persons living at home as well as a decrease in admissions to long-term residential care at 6 months. This type of service can provide an alternative to hospitalization for selected older persons., Primary Funding Source: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (12/209/66).

Background: The policy several countries is to provide people with a terminal illness the choice of dying at home; this is supported by surveys that indicate that the general public and people with a terminal illness would prefer to receive end-of-life care at home. This is the fifth update of the original review., Objectives: To determine if providing home-based end-of-life care reduces the likelihood of dying in hospital and what effect this has on patients' symptoms, quality of life, health service costs and caregivers compared with inpatient hospital or hospice care., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Embase, CINAHL, and clinical trials registries to 18 March 2020. We checked the reference lists of systematic reviews. For included studies, we checked the reference lists and performed a forward search using ISI Web of Science. We handsearched palliative care journals indexed by ISI Web of Science for online first references., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of home-based end-of-life care with inpatient hospital or hospice care for people aged 18 years and older., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. When appropriate, we combined published data for dichotomous outcomes using a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). When combining outcome data was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies., Main Results: We included four randomised trials and found no new studies from the search in March 2020. Home-based end-of-life care increased the likelihood of dying at home compared with usual care (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.52; 2 trials, 539 participants; I 2 = 25%; high-certainty evidence). Admission to hospital varied among the trials (range of RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.79, to RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.50 to 4.55). The effect on patient outcomes and control of symptoms was uncertain. Home-based end-of-life care may slightly improve patient satisfaction at one-month follow-up, with little or no difference at six-month follow-up (2 trials; low-certainty evidence). The effect on caregivers (2 trials; very low-certainty evidence), staff (1 trial; very low-certainty evidence) and health service costs was uncertain (2 trials, very low-certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: The evidence included in this review supports the use of home-based end-of-life care programmes for increasing the number of people who will die at home. Research that assesses the impact of home-based end-of-life care on caregivers and admissions to hospital would be a useful addition to the evidence base, and might inform the delivery of these services., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Attempts to design services to support the delivery of healthcare closer to home have taken various forms as countries respond to an increase in hospital admission rates for older people, who are at risk of hospital-acquired morbidity, prolonged lengths of stay and readmission. Evidence to support the development of these services is limited. We are conducting a process evaluation, alongside a UK multi-site randomised trial, to understand the contexts and practices of implementing geriatrician-led admission avoidance hospital at home services and to explore ways that the intervention might be effective, under what conditions, for whom, and how it differs from inpatient care., Methods: We are interviewing patients and their caregivers, from sites that are purposively sampled from participating National Health Service (NHS) trusts across the UK. We are also visiting sites to observe local processes and discuss the establishment and running of services with a range of multidisciplinary staff, managers, commissioners, primary care and social services representatives. We aim to interview approximately 36 patients and their caregivers with experience of hospital at home or inpatient services; 12 at each of three sites. We will use a content analysis approach to explore data across participants, services and sites., Discussion: This process evaluation will enable evaluation of implementation processes prior to knowing trial outcomes. We encompass domains of reach, delivery, change, context and response to the intervention by patients, their carers, health professionals and the health system., Trial Registration: ISRCTN60477865 . Registered on 10 March 2014. Trial sponsor: University of Oxford. Version 3.1, registered on 14 June 2016.

Background: The policy in a number of countries is to provide people with a terminal illness the choice of dying at home. This policy is supported by surveys indicating that the general public and people with a terminal illness would prefer to receive end-of-life care at home. This is the fourth update of the original review., Objectives: To determine if providing home-based end-of-life care reduces the likelihood of dying in hospital and what effect this has on patients' symptoms, quality of life, health service costs, and caregivers, compared with inpatient hospital or hospice care., Search Methods: We searched the following databases until April 2015: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R) (from 1950), EMBASE (from 1980), CINAHL (from 1982), and EconLit (from 1969). We checked the reference lists of potentially relevant articles identified and handsearched palliative care publications, clinical trials registries, and a database of systematic reviews for related trials (PDQ-Evidence 2015)., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series, or controlled before and after studies evaluating the effectiveness of home-based end-of-life care with inpatient hospital or hospice care for people aged 18 years and older., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We combined the published data for dichotomous outcomes using fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis. When combining outcome data was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies., Main Results: We included four trials in this review and did not identify new studies from the search in April 2015. Home-based end-of-life care increased the likelihood of dying at home compared with usual care (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.55, P = 0.0002; Chi(2) = 1.72, df = 2, P = 0.42, I(2) = 0%; 3 trials; N = 652; high quality evidence). Admission to hospital while receiving home-based end-of-life care varied between trials, and this was reflected by a high level of statistical heterogeneity in this analysis (range RR 0.62 to RR 2.61; 4 trials; N = 823; moderate quality evidence). Home-based end-of-life care may slightly improve patient satisfaction at one-month follow-up and reduce it at six-month follow-up (2 trials; low quality evidence). The effect on caregivers is uncertain (2 trials; low quality evidence). The intervention may slightly reduce healthcare costs (2 trials, low quality evidence). No trial reported costs to patients and caregivers., Authors' Conclusions: The evidence included in this review supports the use of home-based end-of-life care programmes for increasing the number of people who will die at home, although the numbers of people admitted to hospital while receiving end-of-life care should be monitored. Future research should systematically assess the impact of home-based end-of-life care on caregivers.

Background: Stroke patients are usually admitted to hospital for their acute care and rehabilitation. Services to help acute stroke patients avoid admission to hospital ('hospital-at-home') have now been developed., Objectives: To establish the costs and effects of such services compared with conventional services., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register in March 1999 and supplemented this through discussion with colleagues and trialists., Selection Criteria: Controlled clinical trials recruiting stroke patients who have not been admitted to hospital and compare (1) services which provided support with an aim of helping prevent admission to hospital with (20 conventional services (which could include hospital admission)., Data Collection and Analysis: Two independent review authors determined the eligibility and methodological quality of trials. Trialists were then contacted to obtain standardised descriptive and outcome data., Main Results: Four trials are included in the review, of which three currently have outcome data available (921 patients; 857 from one controlled trial, 64 from two randomised trials). There were no statistically significant differences between the patient and carer outcomes of the intervention and control groups either within individual trials or in pooled analyses. There was a trend toward greater hospital bed use and increased costs in the intervention groups., Authors' Conclusions: There is currently no evidence from clinical trials to support a radical shift in the care of acute stroke patients from hospital-based care.

Background: The policy in a number of countries is to provide people with a terminal illness the choice of dying at home. This policy is supported by surveys indicating that the general public and patients with a terminal illness would prefer to receive end of life care at home., Objectives: To determine if providing home-based end of life care reduces the likelihood of dying in hospital and what effect this has on patients' symptoms, quality of life, health service costs and care givers compared with inpatient hospital or hospice care., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library) to October 2009, Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1950 to March 2011, EMBASE 1980 to October 2009, CINAHL 1982 to October 2009 and EconLit to October 2009. We checked the reference lists of articles identified for potentially relevant articles., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series or controlled before and after studies evaluating the effectiveness of home-based end of life care with inpatient hospital or hospice care for people aged 18 years and older., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We combined the published data for dichotomous outcomes using fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis. When combining outcome data was not possible we presented the data in narrative summary tables., Main Results: We included four trials in this review. Those receiving home-based end of life care were statistically significantly more likely to die at home compared with those receiving usual care (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.55, P = 0.0002; Chi (2) = 1.72, df = 2, P = 0.42, I(2) = 0% (three trials; N=652)). We detected no statistically significant differences for functional status (measured by the Barthel Index), psychological well-being or cognitive status, between patients receiving home-based end of life care compared with those receiving standard care (which included inpatient care). Admission to hospital while receiving home-based end of life care varied between trials and this was reflected by high levels of statistically significant heterogeneity in this analysis. There was some evidence of increased patient satisfaction with home-based end of life care, and little evidence of the impact this form of care has on care givers., Authors' Conclusions: The evidence included in this review supports the use of end of life home-care programmes for increasing the number of patients who will die at home, although the numbers of patients being admitted to hospital while receiving end of life care should be monitored. Future research should also systematically assess the impact of end of life home care on care givers.

Background: Admission avoidance 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, and always for a limited time period. In particular, hospital at home has to offer a specific service to patients in their home requiring health care professionals to take an active part in the patients' care. If hospital at home were not available then the patient would be admitted to an acute hospital ward. Many countries are adopting this type of care in an attempt to reduce the demand for acute hospital admission., Objectives: To determine, in the context of a systematic review and meta analysis, the effectiveness and cost of managing patients with admission avoidance hospital at home compared with in-patient hospital care., Search Strategy: The following databases were searched through to January 2008: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, EconLit and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) register. We checked the reference lists of articles identified electronically for evaluations of hospital at home and obtained potentially relevant articles. Unpublished studies were sought by contacting providers and researchers who were known to be involved in this field., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials recruiting patients aged 18 years and over. Studies comparing admission avoidance hospital at home with acute hospital in-patient care. The admission avoidance hospital at home interventions may admit patients directly from the community thereby avoiding physical contact with the hospital, or may admit from the emergency room., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Our statistical analyses sought to include all randomised patients and 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. When combining outcome data was not possible because of differences in the reporting of outcomes we have presented the data in narrative summary tables.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 (where both outcomes were available). We included randomisation group (admission avoidance hospital at home versus control), age (above or below the median), and gender in the models. The calculated log hazard ratios were combined using fixed effects inverse variance meta analysis. If there were no events in one group we used the Peto odds ratio method to calculate a log odds ratio from the sum of the log-rank test 'O-E' statistics from a Kaplan Meier survival analysis. Statistical significance throughout was taken at the two-sided 5% level (p<0.05) and data are presented as the estimated effect with 95% confidence intervals. For each comparison using published data for dichotomous outcomes we calculated risk ratios using a fixed effects model to combine data., Main Results: We included 10 RCTs (n=1333), 7 of which were eligible for the IPD. Five out of these seven trials contributed to the IPD meta-analysis (n=850/975; 87%). There was a non significant reduction in mortality at three months for the admission avoidance hospital at home group (adjusted HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.09; p=0.15), which reached significance at six months follow-up (adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.87; p=0.005). A non significant increase in admissions was observed for patients allocated to hospital at home (adjusted HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.33; p=0.08). Few differences were reported for functional ability, quality of life or cognitive ability. Patients reported increased satisfaction with admission avoidance hospital at home. Two trials conducted a full economic analysis, when the costs of informal care were excluded admission avoidance hospital at home was less expensive than admission to an acute hospital ward., Authors' Conclusions: We performed meta-analyses where there was sufficient similarity among the trials and where common outcomes had been measured. There is no evidence from the analysis to suggest that admission avoidance hospital at home leads to outcomes that differ from inpatient hospital care.

Background hospital level healthcare in the home guided by comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) might provide a less costly alternative to hospitalisation for older people. Objective to determine the cost-effectiveness of CGA admission avoidance hospital at home (HAH) compared with hospital admission. Design/intervention a cost-effectiveness study alongside a randomised trial of CGA in an admission avoidance HAH setting, compared with admission to hospital. Participants/setting older people considered for a hospital admission in nine locations across the UK were randomised using a 2:1 randomisation schedule to admission avoidance HAH with CGA (N  = 700), or admission to hospital with CGA when available (N  = 355). Measurements quality adjusted life years, resource use and costs at baseline and 6 months; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. The main analysis used complete cases. Results adjusting for baseline covariates, HAH was less costly than admission to hospital from a health and social care perspective (mean −£2,265, 95% CI: −4,279 to −252), and remained less costly with the addition of informal care costs (mean difference −£2,840, 95% CI: −5,495 to −185). There was no difference in quality adjusted survival. Using multiple imputation for missing data, the mean difference in health and social care costs widened to −£2,458 (95% CI: −4,977 to 61) and societal costs remained significantly lower (−£3,083, 95% CI: −5,880 to −287). There was little change to quality adjusted survival. Conclusions CGA HAH is a cost-effective alternative to admission to hospital for selected older people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is limited understanding of the contribution made by older people and their caregivers to acute healthcare in the home and how this compares to hospital inpatient healthcare. Objectives To explore the work of older people and caregivers at the time of an acute health event, the interface with professionals in a hospital and hospital at home (HAH) and how their experiences relate to the principles underpinning comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). Design A qualitative interview study within a UK multi-site participant randomised trial of geriatrician-led admission avoidance HAH, compared with hospital inpatient care. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 34 older people (15 had received HAH and 19 hospital care) alone or alongside caregivers (29 caregivers; 12 HAH, 17 hospital care), in three sites that recruited participants to a randomised trial, during 2017–2018. We used normalisation process theory to guide our analysis and interpretation of the data. Results Patients and caregivers described efforts to understand changes in health, interpret assessments and mitigate a lack of involvement in decisions. Practical work included managing risks, mobilising resources to meet health-related needs, and integrating the acute episode into longer-term strategies. Personal, relational and environmental factors facilitated or challenged adaptive capacity and ability to manage. Conclusions Patients and caregivers contributed to acute healthcare in both locations, often in parallel to healthcare providers. Our findings highlight an opportunity for CGA-guided services at the interface of acute and chronic condition management to facilitate personal, social and service strategies extending beyond an acute episode of healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 metaanalysis 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]