TY - JOUR
T1 - Hospital at home
T2 - Feasibility and outcomes of a program to provide hospital-level care at home for acutely III older patients
AU - Leff, Bruce
AU - Burton, Lynda
AU - Mader, Scott L.
AU - Naughton, Bruce
AU - Burl, Jeffrey
AU - Inouye, Sharon K.
AU - Greenough, William B.
AU - Guido, Susan
AU - Langston, Christopher
AU - Frick, Kevin D.
AU - Steinwachs, Donald M.
AU - Burton, John R.
PY - 2005/12/6
Y1 - 2005/12/6
N2 - Background: Acutely ill older persons often experience adverse events when cared for in the acute care hospital. Objective: To assess the clinical feasibility and efficacy of providing acute hospital-level care in a patient's home in a hospital at home. Design: Prospective quasi-experiment. Setting: 3 Medicare-managed care (Medicare + Choice) health systems at 2 sites and a Veterans Administration medical center. Participants: 455 community-dwelling elderly patients who required admission to an acute care hospital for community-acquired pneumonia, exacerbation of chronic heart failure, exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or cellulitis. Intervention: Treatment in a hospital-at-home model of care that substitutes for treatment in an acute care hospital. Measurements: Clinical process measures, standards of care, clinical complications, satisfaction with care, functional status, and costs of care. Results: Hospital-at-home care was feasible and efficacious in delivering hospital-level care to patients at home. In 2 of 3 sites studied, 69% of patients who were offered hospital-at-home care chose it over acute hospital care; in the third site, 29% of patients chose hospital-at-home care. Although less procedurally oriented than acute hospital care, hospital-at-home care met quality standards at rates similar to those of acute hospital care. On an intention-to-treat basis, patients treated in hospital-at-home had a shorter length of stay (3.2 vs. 4.9 days) (P = 0.004), and there was some evidence that they also had fewer complications. The mean cost was lower for hospital-at-home care than for acute hospital care ($5081 vs. $7480) (P < 0.001). Limitations: Possible selection bias because of the quasi-experimental design and missing data, modest sample size, and study site differences. Conclusions: The hospital-at-home care model is feasible, safe, and efficacious for certain older patients with selected acute medical illnesses who require acute hospital-level care.
AB - Background: Acutely ill older persons often experience adverse events when cared for in the acute care hospital. Objective: To assess the clinical feasibility and efficacy of providing acute hospital-level care in a patient's home in a hospital at home. Design: Prospective quasi-experiment. Setting: 3 Medicare-managed care (Medicare + Choice) health systems at 2 sites and a Veterans Administration medical center. Participants: 455 community-dwelling elderly patients who required admission to an acute care hospital for community-acquired pneumonia, exacerbation of chronic heart failure, exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or cellulitis. Intervention: Treatment in a hospital-at-home model of care that substitutes for treatment in an acute care hospital. Measurements: Clinical process measures, standards of care, clinical complications, satisfaction with care, functional status, and costs of care. Results: Hospital-at-home care was feasible and efficacious in delivering hospital-level care to patients at home. In 2 of 3 sites studied, 69% of patients who were offered hospital-at-home care chose it over acute hospital care; in the third site, 29% of patients chose hospital-at-home care. Although less procedurally oriented than acute hospital care, hospital-at-home care met quality standards at rates similar to those of acute hospital care. On an intention-to-treat basis, patients treated in hospital-at-home had a shorter length of stay (3.2 vs. 4.9 days) (P = 0.004), and there was some evidence that they also had fewer complications. The mean cost was lower for hospital-at-home care than for acute hospital care ($5081 vs. $7480) (P < 0.001). Limitations: Possible selection bias because of the quasi-experimental design and missing data, modest sample size, and study site differences. Conclusions: The hospital-at-home care model is feasible, safe, and efficacious for certain older patients with selected acute medical illnesses who require acute hospital-level care.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=28844504981&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=28844504981&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
C2 - 16330791
AN - SCOPUS:28844504981
SN - 0003-4819
VL - 143
SP - 798-808+I-56
JO - Annals of internal medicine
JF - Annals of internal medicine
IS - 11
ER -