Shepperd Sasha, Doll Helen, Broad Joanna, Gladman John, Iliffe Steve, Langhorne Peter, Richards Suzanne, Martin Finbarr, Harris Roger
Department of Public Health, University of Oxford, Rosemary Rue Building, Headington, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK, OX3 7LF.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan 21(1):CD000356. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000356.pub3.
'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“早期出院居家治疗”是一项由医护人员在患者家中为原本需要急性住院治疗的疾病提供积极治疗的服务。如果没有居家治疗服务,患者将留在急性医院病房。
在系统评价和荟萃分析的背景下,确定与住院治疗相比,早期出院居家治疗患者的有效性和成本。
我们检索了Cochrane有效实践与护理组织(EPOC)小组注册库、MEDLINE(1950年至2008年)、EMBASE(1980年至2008年)、CINAHL(1982年至2008年)以及截至2008年1月的EconLit。我们检查了已识别文章的参考文献列表,以查找潜在相关文章。
招募18岁及以上患者的随机对照试验。比较早期出院居家治疗与急性住院治疗的研究。本评价排除对产科、儿科和心理健康居家治疗方案的评估。
两位作者独立提取数据并评估研究质量。我们的统计分析基于意向性分析。我们向试验者索要个体患者数据(IPD),当未收到试验数据集或IPD不包括相关结局时,我们依赖已发表的数据。对于IPD荟萃分析,在一项试验的两个研究组中至少报告了一个事件的情况下,使用Cox回归模型分别为每个数据集计算死亡率和再入院率的对数风险比及其标准误。计算出的对数风险比使用固定效应逆方差荟萃分析进行合并。
本评价纳入了26项试验[n = 3967];21项符合IPD荟萃分析的条件,21项试验中的13项提供了数据[1899/2872;66%]。对于从中风康复的患者和患有多种疾病的老年患者,两组之间死亡率存在差异的证据不足(调整后风险比0.79,95%置信区间0.32至1.91;N = 494;调整后风险比1.06,95%置信区间0.69至1.61;N = 978)。分配到居家治疗的患有多种疾病的老年患者的再入院率显著增加(调整后风险比1.57;95%置信区间1.10至2.24;N = 705)。对于从中风康复的患者和患有多种疾病的老年患者,分别在随访时分配到居家治疗的患者入住养老院的人数显著减少(风险比0.63;95%置信区间0.40至0.98;N = 4项试验;风险比0.69,95%置信区间0.48至0.99;N = 3项试验)。患者报告对早期出院居家治疗的满意度有所提高。在招募术后康复患者的试验中,两组之间再入院率存在差异的证据不足。关于成本节约的证据不一。
尽管人们对早期出院居家治疗服务作为住院治疗的一种更便宜替代方案的潜力越来越感兴趣,但本评价提供的经济利益或改善健康结局的客观证据不足。