Implementing a hospital-at-home service to improve patient outcomes

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (20) ◽  
pp. 1206-1207
Author(s):  
Joanne Hockley ◽  
Caroline Essenhigh
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Hecimovic ◽  
Vesna Matijasevic ◽  
Steven A. Frost

Abstract Background Hospital at home (HaH) provides acute or subacute care in a patient’s home, that normally would require a hospital stay. HaH has consistently been shown to improve patient outcomes and reduce health care costs. The characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving HaH care across the South Western Sydney Local Health District (SWSLHD) has not been well described. This project aimed to describe the characteristics and outcomes of HaH services across the SWSLHD. Methods The characteristics of patients referred to HaH between January 2017 and December 2019, the indications for HaH, and representation rates to hospital emergency department (ED) will be presented. Results Between January 2017 and December 2019 there was 7118 referrals to the local health district’s (LHD) HaH services, among 6083 patients (3094 females, 51%), median age 56 years (Interquartile range (IQR), 40–69). The majority of indications for HaH were for intravenous venous (IV) medications (78%, n = 5552), followed by post-operative drain management (11%, n = 789), rehab in the home (RiTH) (5%, n = 334), bridging anticoagulant therapy (4%, n = 261), and intraperitoneal medications (1%, n = 100). The requirement for presentation to an ED for care, while receiving HaH only occurred on 172 (2%) of occasions. The average length of HaH treatment was 7-days (IQR 4–16). Rates of presentation to ED for HaH patients have decreased since 2017, 3.4% (95% CI 2.7–4.2%), 2018 2.1% (95% CI 1.5–2.8%), and 2019 1.8% (95% CI 1.3–2.4%), p-value for trend < 0.001. Conclusion Hospital at Home is well established, diverse, and safe clinical service to shorten, or avoid hospitalisation, for many patients. Importantly, avoidance of hospitalisation can avoid many risks that are associated with being cared for in the hospital setting.


2000 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 375-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
G E Grande ◽  
C J Todd ◽  
S I G Barclay ◽  
M C Farquhar

2016 ◽  
Vol 101 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A89.2-A90
Author(s):  
D Stan ◽  
Z Tribble ◽  
Z Kassim ◽  
U Asoh ◽  
O Akindolie

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 336-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Jester ◽  
Karen Titchener ◽  
Janet Doyle-Blunden ◽  
Christine Caldwell

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to share good practice with interested professionals, commissioners and health service managers regarding the development of an evidence-based approach to evaluation of an integrated care service providing acute level care for patients in their own homes in South London called the Guys and St Thomas’ @home service. Design/methodology/approach – A literature review related to Hospital at Home (HH) schemes was carried out with an aim of scoping approaches used during previous evaluations of HH type interventions to inform the development of an evaluation strategy for @home. The results of the review were then applied to the Donabedian conceptual model: Structure; Process; and Outcome and contextualised to the population being served by the scheme to ensure a robust, practical and comprehensive approach to evaluation. Findings – Due to the heterogeneity of the studies it was not possible to conduct a systematic review or meta-analysis. In total, 28 studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria and included both HH to facilitate early discharge and admission prevention across a wide range of conditions. The key finding was there is a dearth of literature evaluating staff preparation to work on HH, models of delivery, specifically integrated care and trans-disciplinary working and few studies included the experiences of family carers. Originality/value – This paper will be of value to those involved in the commissioning and delivery of HH and other models of integrated care services type services and will help to inform evaluation strategies that are practical, evidence based and include all stakeholder perspectives.


1997 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Sims ◽  
E. Rink ◽  
R. Walker ◽  
L. Pickard

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document