Suppr超能文献

远程与家庭医生上门服务对居家医院级护理的效果比较:一项随机临床试验。

Remote vs In-home Physician Visits for Hospital-Level Care at Home: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

机构信息

Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

出版信息

JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Aug 1;5(8):e2229067. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.29067.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Home hospital care is the substitutive provision of home-based acute care services usually associated with a traditional inpatient hospital. Many home hospital models require a physician to see patients at home daily, which may hinder scalability. Whether remote physician visits can safely substitute for most in-home visits is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To compare remote and in-home physician care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized clinical trial assessed 172 adult patients at an academic medical center and community hospital who required hospital-level care for select acute conditions, including infection, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma, between August 3, 2019, and March 26, 2020; follow-up ended April 26, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

All patients received acute care at home, including in-home nurse or paramedic visits, intravenous medications, remote monitoring, and point-of-care testing. Patients were randomized to receive physician care remotely (initial in-home visit followed by daily video visit facilitated by the home hospital nurse) vs in-home care (daily in-home physician visit). In the remote care group, the physician could choose to see the patient at home beyond the first visit if it was felt to be medically necessary.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the number of adverse events, compared using multivariable Poisson regression at a noninferiority threshold of 10 events per 100 patients. Adverse events included a fall, pressure injury, and delirium. Secondary outcomes included the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire 15 score (scale of 0-15, with 0 indicating worst patient experience and 15 indicating best patient experience) and 30-day readmission rates.

RESULTS

A total of 172 patients (84 receiving remote care and 88 receiving in-home physician care [control group]) were randomized; enrollment was terminated early because of COVID-19. The mean (SD) age was 69.3 (18.0) years, 97 patients (56.4%) were female, 77 (45.0%) were White, and 42 (24.4%) lived alone. Mean adjusted adverse event count was 6.8 per 100 patients for remote care patients vs 3.9 per 100 patients for control patients, for a difference of 2.8 (95% CI, -3.3 to 8.9), supporting noninferiority. For remote care vs control patients, the mean adjusted Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire 15 score difference was -0.22 (95% CI, -1.00 to 0.56), supporting noninferiority. The mean adjusted 30-day readmission absolute rate difference was 2.28% (95% CI, -3.23% to 7.79%), which was inconclusive. Of patients in the remote group, 16 (19.0%) required in-home visits beyond the first visit.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, remote physician visits were noninferior to in-home physician visits during home hospital care for adverse events and patient experience, although in-home physician care was necessary to support many patients receiving remote care. Our findings may allow for a more efficient, scalable home hospital approach but require further research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04080570.

摘要

重要性

家庭医院护理是对通常与传统住院医院相关的基于家庭的急性护理服务的替代提供。许多家庭医院模式都要求医生每天到家中看望患者,这可能会阻碍其可扩展性。远程医生就诊是否可以安全替代大多数家庭就诊尚不清楚。

目的

比较远程和家庭医生护理。

设计、地点和参与者:这项随机临床试验评估了 172 名在学术医疗中心和社区医院接受治疗的成年患者,这些患者因感染、心力衰竭、慢性阻塞性肺疾病和哮喘等特定急性疾病需要住院治疗,研究于 2019 年 8 月 3 日至 2020 年 3 月 26 日进行;随访于 2020 年 4 月 26 日结束。

干预措施

所有患者都在家中接受急性护理,包括家庭护士或护理人员的访问、静脉内药物治疗、远程监测和即时检测。患者被随机分配接受远程医生护理(最初的家庭访问,然后由家庭医院护士提供日常视频访问)或家庭医生护理(每天到家庭医生访问)。在远程护理组中,如果医生认为医疗上有必要,医生可以选择在第一次就诊后到家庭中就诊。

主要结果和措施

主要结果是不良事件的数量,使用多变量泊松回归在非劣效性阈值为 10 例/ 100 例的情况下进行比较。不良事件包括跌倒、压疮和谵妄。次要结果包括选择患者体验问卷 15 分(0-15 分,0 表示最差的患者体验,15 表示最佳的患者体验)和 30 天再入院率。

结果

共有 172 名患者(84 名接受远程护理,88 名接受家庭医生护理[对照组])被随机分配;由于 COVID-19,提前终止了入组。患者的平均(SD)年龄为 69.3(18.0)岁,97 名患者(56.4%)为女性,77 名(45.0%)为白人,42 名(24.4%)独居。远程护理患者的平均调整后不良事件数为 6.8/100 例,对照组为 3.9/100 例,差异为 2.8(95%CI,-3.3 至 8.9),支持非劣效性。对于远程护理与对照组患者,平均调整后选择患者体验问卷 15 分的差异为-0.22(95%CI,-1.00 至 0.56),支持非劣效性。平均调整后 30 天再入院绝对率差异为 2.28%(95%CI,-3.23%至 7.79%),结果不确定。远程组中有 16 名(19.0%)患者需要在第一次就诊后进行家庭就诊。

结论和相关性

在这项研究中,在家庭医院护理期间,远程医生就诊在不良事件和患者体验方面不劣于家庭医生就诊,尽管需要家庭医生护理来支持许多接受远程护理的患者。我们的发现可能允许更有效、更具可扩展性的家庭医院方法,但需要进一步研究。

试验注册

ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT04080570。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f0b3/9428739/ae4c17fd5936/jamanetwopen-e2229067-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验