Maria Normand Larsen MD , Tatjana Sandreva Dreisig MD , Maja Kjær Rasmussen MSc , Anders N.Ø. Schultz MD , Thyge Lynghøj Nielsen MD, PhD , Thea K. Fischer MD, DMSc
{"title":"急性感染患者在医院-家庭模型中的虚拟卫生保健:范围综述","authors":"Maria Normand Larsen MD , Tatjana Sandreva Dreisig MD , Maja Kjær Rasmussen MSc , Anders N.Ø. Schultz MD , Thyge Lynghøj Nielsen MD, PhD , Thea K. Fischer MD, DMSc","doi":"10.1016/j.mcpdig.2025.100250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Given the imbalance between high care demand and strained hospital capacity, hospital-at-home (HaH) models offer a potential solution by providing hospital-level care in patients’ homes. This scoping review maps the literature on hospital-led virtual health care within HaH models for acute infections, focusing on intervention characteristics and evaluation designs. Following Johanna Briggs Institute guidelines and PRISMA-ScR, we included studies on virtual and hybrid HaH models using telemedicine for remote monitoring and interventions. The literature searches were performed from October 3, 2022 to October 22, 2022, and updated on July 11, 2024 and identified 15,062 potentially relevant records. From these, 79 studies met the inclusion criteria, highlighting the diversity of HaH models and their evaluations. Hybrid models provided broader treatment options, but many studies lacked detailed intervention descriptions, complicating implementation and meta-analyses. Most studies evaluated patient outcomes, with limited attention to health care staff and relatives. Nearly 45,000 participants were assessed, but only 254 participated in randomized controlled trials, indicating a need for more high-level evidence. Relevant gaps remain, including model heterogeneity and inconsistent reporting.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74127,"journal":{"name":"Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health","volume":"3 3","pages":"Article 100250"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Virtual Health Care in Hospital-at-Home Models for Patients With Acute Infections: A Scoping Review\",\"authors\":\"Maria Normand Larsen MD , Tatjana Sandreva Dreisig MD , Maja Kjær Rasmussen MSc , Anders N.Ø. Schultz MD , Thyge Lynghøj Nielsen MD, PhD , Thea K. Fischer MD, DMSc\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.mcpdig.2025.100250\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Given the imbalance between high care demand and strained hospital capacity, hospital-at-home (HaH) models offer a potential solution by providing hospital-level care in patients’ homes. This scoping review maps the literature on hospital-led virtual health care within HaH models for acute infections, focusing on intervention characteristics and evaluation designs. Following Johanna Briggs Institute guidelines and PRISMA-ScR, we included studies on virtual and hybrid HaH models using telemedicine for remote monitoring and interventions. The literature searches were performed from October 3, 2022 to October 22, 2022, and updated on July 11, 2024 and identified 15,062 potentially relevant records. From these, 79 studies met the inclusion criteria, highlighting the diversity of HaH models and their evaluations. Hybrid models provided broader treatment options, but many studies lacked detailed intervention descriptions, complicating implementation and meta-analyses. Most studies evaluated patient outcomes, with limited attention to health care staff and relatives. Nearly 45,000 participants were assessed, but only 254 participated in randomized controlled trials, indicating a need for more high-level evidence. Relevant gaps remain, including model heterogeneity and inconsistent reporting.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74127,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health\",\"volume\":\"3 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 100250\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949761225000574\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949761225000574","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Virtual Health Care in Hospital-at-Home Models for Patients With Acute Infections: A Scoping Review
Given the imbalance between high care demand and strained hospital capacity, hospital-at-home (HaH) models offer a potential solution by providing hospital-level care in patients’ homes. This scoping review maps the literature on hospital-led virtual health care within HaH models for acute infections, focusing on intervention characteristics and evaluation designs. Following Johanna Briggs Institute guidelines and PRISMA-ScR, we included studies on virtual and hybrid HaH models using telemedicine for remote monitoring and interventions. The literature searches were performed from October 3, 2022 to October 22, 2022, and updated on July 11, 2024 and identified 15,062 potentially relevant records. From these, 79 studies met the inclusion criteria, highlighting the diversity of HaH models and their evaluations. Hybrid models provided broader treatment options, but many studies lacked detailed intervention descriptions, complicating implementation and meta-analyses. Most studies evaluated patient outcomes, with limited attention to health care staff and relatives. Nearly 45,000 participants were assessed, but only 254 participated in randomized controlled trials, indicating a need for more high-level evidence. Relevant gaps remain, including model heterogeneity and inconsistent reporting.