• Chunhu Shi, Jo Dumville, Fernando Rubinstein, Gill Norman, Akbar Ullah, Saima Bashir, Peter Bower, and VardyEmma R L CERLCSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Greater Manchester (ARC-GM), Manchester, UK.Oldh.
• School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. chunhu.shi@manchester.ac.uk.
• Bmc Med. 2024 Apr 2; 22 (1): 145145.

BackgroundTechnology-enabled inpatient-level care at home services, such as virtual wards and hospital at home, are being rapidly implemented. This is the first systematic review to link the components of these service delivery innovations to evidence of effectiveness to explore implications for practice and research.MethodsFor this review (registered here https://osf.io/je39y ), we searched Cochrane-recommended multiple databases up to 30 November 2022 and additional resources for randomised and non-randomised studies that compared technology-enabled inpatient-level care at home with hospital-based inpatient care. We classified interventions into care model groups using three key components: clinical activities, workforce, and technology. We synthesised evidence by these groups quantitatively or narratively for mortality, hospital readmissions, cost-effectiveness and length of stay.ResultsWe include 69 studies: 38 randomised studies (6413 participants; largely judged as low or unclear risk of bias) and 31 non-randomised studies (31,950 participants; largely judged at serious or critical risk of bias). The 69 studies described 63 interventions which formed eight model groups. Most models, regardless of using low- or high-intensity technology, may have similar or reduced hospital readmission risk compared with hospital-based inpatient care (low-certainty evidence from randomised trials). For mortality, most models had uncertain or unavailable evidence. Two exceptions were low technology-enabled models that involve hospital- and community-based professionals, they may have similar mortality risk compared with hospital-based inpatient care (low- or moderate-certainty evidence from randomised trials). Cost-effectiveness evidence is unavailable for high technology-enabled models, but sparse evidence suggests the low technology-enabled multidisciplinary care delivered by hospital-based teams appears more cost-effective than hospital-based care for those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations.ConclusionsLow-certainty evidence suggests that none of technology-enabled care at home models we explored put people at higher risk of readmission compared with hospital-based care. Where limited evidence on mortality is available, there appears to be no additional risk of mortality due to use of technology-enabled at home models. It is unclear whether inpatient-level care at home using higher levels of technology confers additional benefits. Further research should focus on clearly defined interventions in high-priority populations and include comparative cost-effectiveness evaluation.Trial Registrationhttps://osf.io/je39y .© 2024. The Author(s).

11 keywords...

hide…