Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Home Hospitalization – An Innovative and Transformational Approach Whose Time Has Come



American healthcare delivery is seriously dysfunctional. It takes you about three weeks to get a doctor’s appointment, you sit in the waiting room for a long time, you get 10 to 12 minutes with the doctor and then you have a hefty deductible and/or copay despite paying handsomely for insurance. American medicine costs about three times per capita more than most other developed countries yet outcomes are no better, patient satisfaction is low and burn out among physicians is high.

As to hospitalization, it is very expensive, the risk of a medical error is real, hospital acquired infections are all too common and the patient frequently leaves feeling unsatisfied.

But do all those individuals admitted necessarily need hospitalization? Today the answer is generally yes. But tomorrow that could and probably could change, for the better. What if many of the attributes of the hospital could be brought to the home? Attributes like nursing care, electronic monitoring of vital signs and intravenous therapy, to name just a few. There is really no reason why the home cannot serve this purpose for some selected patients today. When it does, the patient remains in familiar, comforting surrounding; the chance for errors and infections can go down and the costs of care can decline substantially. The critical question, of course, is whether the clinical outcomes are just as good, or possibly even better.

Enter an innovative and exceptionally transformational approach. Think of it perhaps as a virtual hospital that maximizes the capacity to use today's digital technology.

Embryonic at best in the United States, there are multiple examples worldwide as recently reviewed in the New England Journal of Medicine. The basic idea is to follow emergency room evaluation (or even doctor’s office evaluation) with the decision to admit to the hospital or to use hospital at home care. Not all patient conditions are appropriate for home care of course but among those that are often appropriate: exacerbation of heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, community acquired pneumonia, asthmatic attacks, deep vein thrombosis and possibly pulmonary embolus and deep-seated skin or soft tissue infections.

One recent study compared 50 patients treated at home for a 34 day period to a similar group treated in the hospital after initial evaluation in the emergency room or observation unit. At the conclusion of the study period, the hospital at home patients had greater satisfaction with multiple query categories and met standard quality measures for their specific diagnoses.   Those patients were less likely to need readmission over the ensuing ninety days.

Some keys to success include effective two-way digital communication systems that allow for virtual physician and nurse visits in an HIPAA secure setting along with remote virtual biometric monitoring. Proper patient selection is important as those who might need more intensive diagnostics (e.g., MRI) or therapeutics (e.g., surgery) are inappropriate candidates. It is also important that the work traditionally done by hospital personnel not be offloaded to the family members; this will defeat the purpose and lead to ill-will. Maintaining contact virtually and with home visits for a prolonged period after the immediate acute episode will likely improve the care transition and lead to fewer readmissions.

With positive results nationally and internationally, why hasn't the hospital at home model become commonplace? I suspect it has multiple causes not least of which is physician concern. Medical professionals are loath to make dramatic changes when the current system works, or at least works reasonably well for most episodes. Add in, of course, that the fee-for-service reimbursement model for physicians and hospitals discourages interest. Only when the physician can be paid for virtual/digital care approaches and the hospital benefits financially from fewer admissions will real interest develop.

Innovative? Certainly. Transformative? Definitely. Makes sense from a quality of care perspective? Yes. Leads to greater patient satisfaction? Yes. Means fewer safety lapses and care associated infections? Perhaps. Reduces unplanned remission rates? Probably. Costs less? Yes.

In sum, the time is right for implementation in those settings where payment models do not discriminate against in-home care models. Logical places to start would be Medicare Advantage plans, military or veterans plans and other entities that hold total fiscal and care risk.


Home hospitalization could be one step in improving the American dysfunctional healthcare delivery system with improved care, greater satisfaction and reduced costs – the Triple Aim

This was first published at Medical Economics December 19, 2016 


5 comments:

Apu Mridha said...

Hey,
Thank you for sharing such an amazing and informative post. Really enjoyed reading it. :)

Apu

Medical Case Management Services

John Austin said...

Hello,

My baby is only 6 months old and has above specified issues. He is on consistent Oxygen and feeding tube. I have been wandering to various doctors to find a cure for my son but couldn't find any solution. It would be a great help if anyone could guide me or look into my case and provide me an absolute solution.
I dont have any option to upload my respective documents therefore I am sharing a brief about the case as follows:

Diagnosis: Dysmorphic baby (Microtia/Dolicocephaly), Pneumonia (Klebsiella + RSV), High Grade GER

Presenting Complaints: Cough and Cold, Respiratory distress

History of presenting complaints: Child 2 months old male, is a product of 39 weeks GA delivered through LSCS (Indication previous LSCS), B wt: 2.3KG, immediately cry, Apgar score : 8, 8, 9. was admitted in NICU for respiratory distress for 12 days and discharged as T/AGA/ Sepsis / Multiple congenital anomalies (Microtia / Dolicocephaly) and referred to higher center in view of persistent RD, for ECHO (USG KUB + abdomen cranium - WNL. ECHO done at day 25 of life s/o PFO left to right shunt. There is a history of suck rest suck cycle and sweating at time of feeding, Now since 8 days baby developed cough and cold since 8 days and increased difficulty in breathing for 7 days for which he was admitted in St. Stephens hospital but was not improved, so was taken to Max vaishli hospital.

Past History: Nothing significant

Family History: Nothing significant

Birth History:
Term (39 weeks) / AGA / Sepsis / Multiple Congenital anomalies (microtia/ short nech)
admitted in NICU for 12 days - USG KUB / abdomen - WNL
(antenatally s/o hydrocephalus) USG cranium WNL
discharge after 12 days of (Antibiotic), labratory parameters improved, (Breast feeding) well but tachypneawith minimal subcostal /ICR(+)

Development History: Appropriate for age

Immunization history: Immunized as per schedule

Sunil Verma
Email - johnau159@gmail.com

IVF Prescriptions said...

Very interesting to read your article. fertility drugs for men | fertility drugs for twins

Koolmd said...

Hi...
Very useful, informative blog about medical conditions.

We provide Online Doctor Consultation & Medicine Prescriptions.
For more details visit: https://koolmd.com/

jhon alex said...

Really I am very happy to your service,Great information - thanks a lot for the detailed articleThat is very interesting I love reading and I am always searching for informative information like this.
Medical Billing

Praise for Dr Schimpff

The craft of science writing requires skills that are arguably the most underestimated and misunderstood in the media world. Dumbing down all too often gets mistaken for clarity. Showmanship frequently masks a poor presentation of scientific issues. Factoids are paraded in lieu of ideas. Answers are marketed at the expense of searching questions. By contrast, Steve Schimpff provides a fine combination of enlightenment and reading satisfaction. As a medical scientist he brings his readers encyclopedic knowledge of his subject. As a teacher and as a medical ambassador to other disciplines he's learned how to explain medical breakthroughs without unnecessary jargon. As an advisor to policymakers he's acquired the knack of cutting directly to the practical effects, showing how advances in medical science affect the big lifestyle and economic questions that concern us all. But Schimpff's greatest strength as a writer is that he's a physician through and through, caring above all for the person. His engaging conversational style, insights and fascinating treasury of cutting-edge information leave both lay readers and medical professionals turning his pages. In his hands the impact of new medical technologies and discoveries becomes an engrossing story about what lies ahead for us in the 21st century: as healthy people, as patients of all ages, as children, as parents, as taxpayers, as both consumers and providers of health services. There can be few greater stories than the adventure of what awaits our minds, bodies, budgets, lifespans and societies as new technologies change our world. Schimpff tells it with passion, vision, sweep, intelligence and an urgency that none of us can ignore.

-- N.J. Slabbert, science writer, co-author of Innovation, The Key to Prosperity: Technology & America's Role in the 21st Century Global Economy (with Aris Melissaratos, director of technology enterprise at the John Hopkins University).