Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Jun 1;4(6):e2111568.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.11568.

Hospital-at-Home Interventions vs In-Hospital Stay for Patients With Chronic Disease Who Present to the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Hospital-at-Home Interventions vs In-Hospital Stay for Patients With Chronic Disease Who Present to the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Geneviève Arsenault-Lapierre et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: Hospitalizations are costly and may lead to adverse events; hospital-at-home interventions could be a substitute for in-hospital stays, particularly for patients with chronic diseases who use health services more than other patients. Despite showing promising results, heterogeneity in past systematic reviews remains high.

Objective: To systematically review and assess the association between patient outcomes and hospital-at-home interventions as a substitute for in-hospital stay for community-dwelling patients with a chronic disease who present to the emergency department and are offered at least 1 home visit from a nurse and/or physician.

Data sources: Databases were searched from date of inception to March 4, 2019. The databases were Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO, CINAHL, Health Technology Assessment, the Cochrane Library, OVID Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

Study selection: Randomized clinical trials in which the experimental group received hospital-at-home interventions and the control group received the usual in-hospital care. Patients were 18 years or older with a chronic disease who presented to the emergency department and received home visits from a nurse or physician.

Data extraction and synthesis: Risk of bias was assessed, and a meta-analysis was conducted for outcomes that were reported by at least 2 studies using comparable measures. Risk ratios (RRs) were reported for binary outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes. Narrative synthesis was performed for other outcomes.

Main outcomes and measures: Outcomes of interest were patient outcomes, which included mortality, long-term care admission, readmission, length of treatment, out-of-pocket costs, depression and anxiety, quality of life, patient satisfaction, caregiver stress, cognitive status, nutrition, morbidity due to hospitalization, functional status, and neurological deficits.

Results: Nine studies were included, providing data on 959 participants (median age, 71.0 years [interquartile range, 70.0-79.9 years]; 613 men [63.9%]; 346 women [36.1%]). Mortality did not differ between the hospital-at-home and the in-hospital care groups (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.61-1.15; I2 = 0%). Risk of readmission was lower (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.95; I2 = 31%) and length of treatment was longer in the hospital-at-home group than in the in-hospital group (mean difference, 5.45 days; 95% CI, 1.91-8.97 days; I2 = 87%). In addition, the hospital-at-home group had a lower risk of long-term care admission than the in-hospital care group (RR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.74; I2 = 0%). Patients who received hospital-at-home interventions had lower depression and anxiety than those who remained in-hospital, but there was no difference in functional status. Other patient outcomes showed mixed results.

Conclusions and relevance: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that hospital-at-home interventions represent a viable substitute to an in-hospital stay for patients with chronic diseases who present to the emergency department and who have at least 1 visit from a nurse or physician. Although the heterogeneity of the findings remained high for some outcomes, particularly for length of treatment, the heterogeneity of this study was comparable to that of past reviews and further explored.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Flowchart
Search was conducted from the earliest record to March 4, 2019. AMED indicates Allied and Complementary Medicine Database; HTA, Health Technology Assessment; ICTRP, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Risk of Bias Quality Appraisal Results
Risk of bias was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook; N indicates no; NA, not applicable; U, unknown; Y, yes. aSelection bias. bPerformance bias. cDetection bias. dAttrition bias. eReporting bias.

Comment in

References

    1. Forster AJ, Clark HD, Menard A, et al. . Adverse events among medical patients after discharge from hospital. CMAJ. 2004;170(3):345-349. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sharek PJ, Parry G, Goldmann D, et al. . Performance characteristics of a methodology to quantify adverse events over time in hospitalized patients. Health Serv Res. 2011;46(2):654-678. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01156.x - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. ; Harvard Medical Practice Study I . Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. 1991. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13(2):145-151. doi:10.1136/qshc.2002.003822 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Klevens RM, Edwards JR, Richards CL Jr, et al. . Estimating health care-associated infections and deaths in U.S. hospitals, 2002. Public Health Rep. 2007;122(2):160-166. doi:10.1177/003335490712200205 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Vasilevskis EE, Han JH, Hughes CG, Ely EW. Epidemiology and risk factors for delirium across hospital settings. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2012;26(3):277-287. doi:10.1016/j.bpa.2012.07.003 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types