Safety and Cost-Effectiveness of Hospital at Home in Patients with COVID-19.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
David W Walsh, Anthony Daniels, Stephen Looney, Christy Ledford, Thad Wilkins
{"title":"Safety and Cost-Effectiveness of Hospital at Home in Patients with COVID-19.","authors":"David W Walsh, Anthony Daniels, Stephen Looney, Christy Ledford, Thad Wilkins","doi":"10.14423/SMJ.0000000000001797","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly affected the capacity of health systems across the United States. Although not widely used before the pandemic, the hospital-at-home (HaH) model emerged as a potential strategy to alleviate hospital burden by providing hospital-level care in the home setting. This study aims to evaluate the safety, clinical effectiveness, and cost-efficiency of a HaH program for patients with COVID-19, comparing these outcomes with those of traditional in-hospital care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective matched case-control study was conducted at a major academic medical center in the southeastern United States. The study included 200 patients with confirmed COVID-19, 100 of whom were enrolled in the HaH program between February 1, 2021 and January 31, 2022, and 100 served as matched controls who received conventional hospital care. Matching criteria included age, sex, and admission to the intensive care unit. The primary outcomes assessed were 30-day readmission rates and inpatient length of stay (iLOS). Secondary outcomes included total length of stay (tLOS), emergency department visits within 30 days, and detailed cost analysis, including fixed and variable costs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis included 200 patients (mean age 50.4 years, standard deviation 14.2; 55% female). There were no significant differences between the HaH and control groups in terms of age, sex, or intensive care unit admission rates. The study found no statistically significant differences in 30-day readmissions (11% vs 14%, <i>P</i> = 0.48), days to readmission (9.0 vs 11.8, <i>P</i> = 0.32), or 30-day emergency department visits (18% vs 20%, <i>P</i> = 0.72) between the HaH and control groups. The HaH group had a significantly shorter iLOS (5.7 vs 9.4 days, <i>P</i> = 0.04), however, although tLOS was longer (13.0 vs 9.4 days, <i>P</i> < 0.001). The HaH program also demonstrated cost benefits, with significantly lower inpatient fixed costs ($675,668 vs $1,469,098, <i>P</i> = 0.02) and total inpatient costs ($1,268,944 vs $2,995,512, <i>P</i> = 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The HaH program for COVID-19 patients offered a safe alternative to traditional hospitalization, with similar clinical outcomes and significant reductions in inpatient costs. The shorter iLOS suggests potential benefits in hospital resource management during surge periods, while the longer tLOS highlights the need for optimized patient selection and care strategies in the home setting. Further research is warranted to explore the long-term economic implications and patient outcomes of HaH programs, particularly during heightened demand, on healthcare systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":22043,"journal":{"name":"Southern Medical Journal","volume":"118 3","pages":"177-180"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11913219/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Southern Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14423/SMJ.0000000000001797","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly affected the capacity of health systems across the United States. Although not widely used before the pandemic, the hospital-at-home (HaH) model emerged as a potential strategy to alleviate hospital burden by providing hospital-level care in the home setting. This study aims to evaluate the safety, clinical effectiveness, and cost-efficiency of a HaH program for patients with COVID-19, comparing these outcomes with those of traditional in-hospital care.

Methods: A retrospective matched case-control study was conducted at a major academic medical center in the southeastern United States. The study included 200 patients with confirmed COVID-19, 100 of whom were enrolled in the HaH program between February 1, 2021 and January 31, 2022, and 100 served as matched controls who received conventional hospital care. Matching criteria included age, sex, and admission to the intensive care unit. The primary outcomes assessed were 30-day readmission rates and inpatient length of stay (iLOS). Secondary outcomes included total length of stay (tLOS), emergency department visits within 30 days, and detailed cost analysis, including fixed and variable costs.

Results: The analysis included 200 patients (mean age 50.4 years, standard deviation 14.2; 55% female). There were no significant differences between the HaH and control groups in terms of age, sex, or intensive care unit admission rates. The study found no statistically significant differences in 30-day readmissions (11% vs 14%, P = 0.48), days to readmission (9.0 vs 11.8, P = 0.32), or 30-day emergency department visits (18% vs 20%, P = 0.72) between the HaH and control groups. The HaH group had a significantly shorter iLOS (5.7 vs 9.4 days, P = 0.04), however, although tLOS was longer (13.0 vs 9.4 days, P < 0.001). The HaH program also demonstrated cost benefits, with significantly lower inpatient fixed costs ($675,668 vs $1,469,098, P = 0.02) and total inpatient costs ($1,268,944 vs $2,995,512, P = 0.01).

Conclusions: The HaH program for COVID-19 patients offered a safe alternative to traditional hospitalization, with similar clinical outcomes and significant reductions in inpatient costs. The shorter iLOS suggests potential benefits in hospital resource management during surge periods, while the longer tLOS highlights the need for optimized patient selection and care strategies in the home setting. Further research is warranted to explore the long-term economic implications and patient outcomes of HaH programs, particularly during heightened demand, on healthcare systems.

COVID-19患者居家医院的安全性和成本效益
2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行严重影响了美国各地卫生系统的能力。虽然在大流行之前没有广泛使用,但家庭医院(HaH)模式已成为一种潜在的战略,通过在家庭环境中提供医院级别的护理来减轻医院负担。本研究旨在评估针对COVID-19患者的HaH方案的安全性、临床有效性和成本效益,并将这些结果与传统的住院治疗进行比较。方法:在美国东南部的一个主要学术医疗中心进行回顾性匹配病例对照研究。该研究包括200名确诊的COVID-19患者,其中100人在2021年2月1日至2022年1月31日期间参加了HaH计划,另外100人作为接受传统医院护理的匹配对照。匹配标准包括年龄、性别和入住重症监护病房。评估的主要结局是30天再入院率和住院时间(iLOS)。次要结局包括总住院时间(tLOS)、30天内急诊科就诊情况和详细的成本分析,包括固定成本和可变成本。结果:纳入200例患者,平均年龄50.4岁,标准差14.2;55%的女性)。实验组和对照组在年龄、性别或重症监护病房入院率方面没有显著差异。研究发现,在30天再入院率(11% vs 14%, P = 0.48)、再入院天数(9.0 vs 11.8, P = 0.32)或30天急诊科就诊率(18% vs 20%, P = 0.72)方面,HaH组和对照组之间没有统计学上的显著差异。HaH组的iLOS较短(5.7 vs 9.4天,P = 0.04), tLOS较长(13.0 vs 9.4天,P < 0.001)。HaH项目也显示出成本效益,住院固定成本(675,668美元对1,469,098美元,P = 0.02)和住院总成本(1,268,944美元对2,995,512美元,P = 0.01)显著降低。结论:针对COVID-19患者的HaH方案为传统住院提供了一种安全的替代方案,具有相似的临床结果和显著降低住院费用。较短的iLOS表明在高峰期间医院资源管理的潜在好处,而较长的tLOS则强调了在家庭环境中优化患者选择和护理策略的必要性。进一步的研究是必要的,以探索长期的经济影响和病人的结果,特别是在医疗保健系统的高需求。
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
Southern Medical Journal
Southern Medical Journal 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
222
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: As the official journal of the Birmingham, Alabama-based Southern Medical Association (SMA), the Southern Medical Journal (SMJ) has for more than 100 years provided the latest clinical information in areas that affect patients'' daily lives. Now delivered to individuals exclusively online, the SMJ has a multidisciplinary focus that covers a broad range of topics relevant to physicians and other healthcare specialists in all relevant aspects of the profession, including medicine and medical specialties, surgery and surgery specialties; child and maternal health; mental health; emergency and disaster medicine; public health and environmental medicine; bioethics and medical education; and quality health care, patient safety, and best practices. Each month, articles span the spectrum of medical topics, providing timely, up-to-the-minute information for both primary care physicians and specialists. Contributors include leaders in the healthcare field from across the country and around the world. The SMJ enables physicians to provide the best possible care to patients in this age of rapidly changing modern medicine.
×
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