Search

Background: Hospital at home (HaH) provides hospital-level care at home as a substitute for traditional hospital care. Interest in HaH is increasing markedly. While multiple studies of HaH have demonstrated that HaH provides safe, high-quality, cost-effective care, there remain many unanswered research questions. The objective of this study is to develop a research agenda to guide future HaH-related research., Methods: Survey of attendees of first World HaH Congress 2019 for input on research for the future HaH development. Selection and ranking of important topic areas for future HaH-related research. Development of research domains and research questions and issues using grounded theory approach, supplemented by focused literature reviews., Results: 240 conference attendees responded to the survey (response rate, 55.3%). The majority were from Europe (64%) and North America (11%) and were HaH program leaders (29%), HaH physicians (27%), and researchers (13%). Nine research domains for future HaH research were identified: 1) definition of the HaH model of care; 2) the HaH clinical model; 3) measurement and outcomes of HaH; 4) patient and caregiver experience with HaH; 5) education and training of HaH clinicians; 6) technology and telehealth for HaH; 7) regulatory and payment issues in HaH; 8) implementation and scaling of HaH; and 9) ethical issues in HaH. Key research issues and questions were identified for each domain., Conclusions: While highly evidence-based, unanswered research questions regarding HaH remain, focusing research efforts on the domains identified in this study will serve to improve HaH for all key HaH stakeholders., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The American Geriatrics Society.)

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., (© 2020 The American Geriatrics Society.)

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."

Importance: Hospital-at-home (HaH) care provides acute hospital-level care in a patient's home as a substitute for traditional inpatient care. In September 2017, the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee recommended implementation of an alternative payment model for a new model of HaH that bundles the acute episode with 30 days of postacute transitional care., Objective: To report outcomes of this new payment model for HaH care., Design, Setting, and Participants: Case-control study of HaH care patients with a concurrent control group of hospital inpatients recruited from emergency departments (EDs) and residences in New York City from November 18, 2014, to August 31, 2017. HaH patients were 18 years or older with fee-for-service Medicare and acute medical illness requiring inpatient-level care. Control patients met HaH eligibility but refused participation or were seen in the ED when a HaH admission could not be initiated., Exposures: HaH care or inpatient care., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were acute period length of stay (LOS), all-cause 30-day hospital readmissions and ED visits, admissions to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), referral to a certified home health care agency, and patient experiences with care. Analyses accounted for nonrandom selection using inverse probability weighting., Results: Among the 507 patients enrolled (mean [SD] age, 74.6 [15.7] years; 68.6% women), data were available on all patients 30 days postdischarge. HaH patients (n = 295) were older than controls (n = 212) and more likely to have a preacute functional impairment. HaH patients had shorter LOS (3.2 days vs 5.5 days; difference, -2.3 days; 95% CI, -1.8 to -2.7 days; weighted P < .001); lower rates of readmissions (8.6% [25] vs 15.6% [32]; difference, -7.0%; 95% CI, -12.9% to -1.1%; weighted P < .001), ED revisits (5.8% [17] vs 11.7% [24]; difference, -5.9%; 95% CI, -11.0% to -0.7%; weighted P < .001), and SNF admissions (1.7% [5] vs 10.4% [22]; difference, -8.7%; 95% CI, -13.0% to -4.3%; weighted P < .001); and were also more likely to rate their hospital care highly (68.8% [119] vs 45.3% [67]; difference, 23.5%; 95% CI, 12.9% to 34.1%; weighted P < .001). There were no differences in referrals to certified home health agencies., Conclusions and Relevance: HaH care bundled with a 30-day postacute transitional care episode was associated with better patient outcomes and ratings of care compared with inpatient hospitalization. This model warrants consideration for addition to Medicare's current portfolio of shared savings programs.