Schultz Timothy J, Oster Candice, Pincombe Aubyn, Partington Andrew, Taylor Alan, Gray Jodi, Murray Alicia, McInnes Jennifer, Ryan Cassandra, Karnon Jonathan
Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, SA, Australia.
Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, SA, Australia.
Aust Health Rev. 2024 Jul;49. doi: 10.1071/AH24131.
Objectives This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes for patients admitted to Hospital in the Home (HITH) and traditional (bricks-and-mortar) hospitals and explore patient and carer experiences. Methods A mixed methods approach including triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data was used. Quantitative outcomes were compared using augmented inverse propensity weighting to adjust for differences in patient characteristics between groups. Qualitative data was collected by focus groups and interviews and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. The study took place in metropolitan Adelaide and one adjacent regional health network in 2020-22. Participants were patients discharged from either hospital setting with 1 of 22 eligible diagnoses. Hospital administrative data informed a comparison of outcomes that included mortality, rate of emergency department re-presentations and re-admissions, length of stay and incidence of complications. Results Patients treated in HITH were less unwell than traditional hospital patients. There were no safety or quality concerns identified in the clinical outcomes. Of 2095 HITH patients, the in-patient mortality rate was 0.2%, and 2.3% experienced a return to a bricks-and-mortar hospital during the HITH admission. For HITH patients, the mortality rate after 30days was lower (-1.3%, 95% CI -2 to -0.5, P =0.002), as were re-presentations in 28days (-7.2%, 95% CI -9.5 to -5, P <0.0001), re-admissions in 28days (-4.9%, 95% CI -6.7 to -3.2, P <0.001) and complications (-0.6%, 95% CI -0.8 to -0.5, P <0.001). Interviews of 35 patients and six carers found that HITH was highly accepted and preferred by patients. HITH was perceived to free up resources for other, more acutely unwell patients. Conclusions HITH was preferred by patients and at least as effective in delivering quality health care as a traditional hospital, although the potential for unobserved confounding must be acknowledged.
目的 本研究旨在比较居家医院(HITH)和传统(实体)医院收治患者的临床结局,并探索患者及护理人员的体验。方法 采用混合方法,包括对定量和定性数据进行三角测量。使用增强逆倾向加权法比较定量结局,以调整组间患者特征的差异。通过焦点小组和访谈收集定性数据,并采用反思性主题分析法进行分析。该研究于2020年至2022年在阿德莱德大都市及一个相邻的区域卫生网络中进行。参与者为从这两种医院环境中出院且患有22种符合条件诊断之一的患者。医院管理数据为结局比较提供了信息,这些结局包括死亡率、急诊科再次就诊率和再入院率、住院时间及并发症发生率。结果 在HITH接受治疗的患者病情不如传统医院患者严重。临床结局中未发现安全或质量问题。在2095名HITH患者中,住院死亡率为0.2%,2.3%的患者在HITH住院期间返回了实体医院。对于HITH患者,30天后的死亡率较低(-1.3%,95%CI -2至-0.5,P =0.002);28天内的再次就诊率也较低(-7.2%,95%CI -9.5至-5,P <0.0001);28天内的再入院率较低(-4.9%,95%CI -6.7至-3.2,P <0.001);并发症发生率较低(-0.6%,95%CI -0.8至-0.5,P <0.001)。对35名患者和6名护理人员的访谈发现,HITH受到患者的高度认可和青睐。HITH被认为能为其他病情更危急的患者腾出资源。结论 患者更喜欢HITH,并且在提供优质医疗服务方面至少与传统医院一样有效,不过必须承认存在未观察到的混杂因素的可能性。