Patient experiences and outcomes in a South Australian stand-alone Hospital in the Home program.

Timothy J Schultz, Candice Oster, Aubyn Pincombe, Andrew Partington, Alan Taylor, Jodi Gray, Alicia Murray, Jennifer McInnes, Cassandra Ryan, Jonathan Karnon
{"title":"Patient experiences and outcomes in a South Australian stand-alone Hospital in the Home program.","authors":"Timothy J Schultz, Candice Oster, Aubyn Pincombe, Andrew Partington, Alan Taylor, Jodi Gray, Alicia Murray, Jennifer McInnes, Cassandra Ryan, Jonathan Karnon","doi":"10.1071/AH24131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":93891,"journal":{"name":"Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/AH24131","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

南澳大利亚州一项独立的 "居家医院 "计划中的患者体验和疗效。
本研究旨在比较入住家庭医院(HITH)和传统医院(实体医院)的患者的临床疗效,并探讨患者和护理人员的体验。方法采用混合方法,包括定量和定性数据的三角测量。采用增强反倾向加权法对定量结果进行比较,以调整组间患者特征的差异。定性数据通过焦点小组和访谈收集,并使用反思性主题分析法进行分析。这项研究于 2020-22 年在阿德莱德市区和一个邻近地区医疗网络进行。参与者为从任一医院出院并患有 22 种合格诊断中的一种的患者。医院管理数据为结果比较提供了依据,其中包括死亡率、急诊科再次就诊率和再次入院率、住院时间和并发症发生率。在临床结果中没有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。HITH 患者 30 天后的死亡率较低(-1.3%,95% CI -2~-0.5,P=0.002),28 天内再次就诊的死亡率也较低(-7.2%,95% CI -9.5~-5,P=0.002)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信