Behnken, Emma M

Abstract Background Hospital‐at‐home programs (HaH) in the United States have evolved to include a virtual‐hybrid delivery model, where all physician encounters are virtual and partnered with a home care team. Objective To examine whether a virtual hybrid HaH program enabled by technology has similar clinical outcomes to traditional brick‐and‐mortar (B&M) hospital care. Methods We conducted a pragmatic trial at three hospitals, randomizing 1150 acutely ill patients requiring hospital care between July 10, 2023, and October 31, 2023 one‐to‐one into two groups: intervention (HaH) and control (B&M). The primary analysis was an intention‐to‐treat non‐inferiority analysis of the primary outcome, which was a composite of 30‐day all‐cause mortality and unplanned readmissions. Secondary outcomes included 30‐day readmission, all‐cause mortality, and patient experience. Results The mean age was 67.8 (standard deviation [SD] 16.3) years, and 52.2% were female. The primary outcome occurred in 99 (17.3%) HaH patients and 114 (19.8%) B&M patients (odds ratio [OR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63–1.14, p = .28), meeting the non‐inferiority criterion. Thirty‐day unplanned readmission occurred in 84 (14.7%) HaH patients and 101 (17.5%) B&M patients (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59–1.11, p = .19). Thirty‐day all‐cause mortality occurred in 25 (4.4%) HaH patients and 19 (3.3%) B&M patients (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.73–2.46, p = .35). No HaH patients died while receiving their hospital care at home. HaH program was associated with a higher likelihood of patients reporting feeling extremely comfortable or very comfortable (84.4% HaH; 60.9% B&M, p = .001). Conclusion A hybrid HaH model is a safe and comfortable alternative to traditional B&M hospital care.

AbstractBackgroundReflecting (“stop‐and‐think”) before rating may help patients consider the quality of shared decision making (SDM) and mitigate ceiling/halo effects that limit the performance of self‐reported SDM measures.MethodsWe asked a diverse patient sample from the United States to reflect on their care before completing the 3‐item CollaboRATE SDM measure. Study 1 focused on rephrasing CollaboRATE items to promote reflection before each item. Study 2 used 5 open‐ended questions (about what went well and what could be improved upon, signs that the clinician understood the patient's situation, how the situation will be addressed, and why this treatment plan makes sense) to invite reflection before using the whole scale. A linear analogue scale assessed the extent to which the plan of care made sense to the patient.ResultsIn Study 1, 107 participants completed surveys (84% response rate), 43 (40%) rated a clinical decision of which 27 (63%) after responding to reflection questions. Adding reflection lowered CollaboRATE scores (“less” SDM) and reduced the proportion of patients giving maximum (ceiling) scores (not statistically significant). In Study 2, 103 of 212 responders (49%) fully completed the version containing reflection questions. Reflection did not significantly change the distribution of CollaboRATE scores or of top scores. Participants indicated high scores on the sense of their care plan (mean 9.7 out of 10, SD 0.79). This rating was weakly correlated with total CollaboRATE scores (rho = .4, P = .0001).ConclusionReflection‐before‐quantification interventions may not improve the performance of patient‐reported measures of SDM with substantial ceiling/halo effects.

Whether disclosure of genetic risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) influences shared decision-making (SDM) regarding use of statins to reduce CHD risk is unknown. We randomized 207 patients, age 45–65 years, at intermediate CHD risk, and not on statins, to receive the 10-year risk of CHD based on conventional risk factors alone (n=103) or in combination with a genetic risk score (n=104). A genetic counselor disclosed this information followed by a physician visit for SDM regarding statin therapy. A novel decision aid was used in both encounters to disclose the CHD risk estimates and facilitate SDM regarding statin use. Patients reported their decision quality and physician visit satisfaction using validated surveys. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the SDM score, satisfaction with the clinical encounter, perception of the quality of the discussion or of participation in decision-making and physician visit satisfaction scores. Quantitative analyses of a random subset of 80 video-recorded encounters using the OPTION5 scale also showed no significant difference in SDM between the two groups. Disclosure of CHD genetic risk using an electronic health record-linked decision aid did not adversely affect SDM or patients’ satisfaction with the clinical encounter. Trial registration number NCT01936675; Results.