Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36040741›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2022

Remote vs In-home Physician Visits for Hospital-Level Care at Home: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

David M Levine, Mary Paz, Kimberly Burke, Ryan Beaumont, Robert B Boxer, Charles A Morris, Kathryn A Britton, E John Orav, Jeffrey L Schnipper

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04080570 (Remote Physician Care for Home Hospital Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04080570 nacompletednot on this map

Remote Physician Care for Home Hospital Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorBrigham and Women's HospitalRan2019 to 2020Enrolled172ConditionsInfection, Heart Failure, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, AsthmaArmsRemote Visit
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Hospital Care at Home for Adults Living in Rural Settings: A Qualitative Evaluation.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2026
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

David M LevineDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Mary PazMGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kimberly BurkeUMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts.
Ryan BeaumontNortheastern University Bouvé College of Health Sciences, Boston, Massachusetts.
Robert B BoxerDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Charles A MorrisDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kathryn A BrittonHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
E John OravDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jeffrey L SchnipperDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Harvard University · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USMGH Institute of Health Professions · USNortheastern University · USUniversity of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Home hospital care is the substitutive provision of home-based acute care services usually associated with a traditional inpatient hospital. Many home hospital models require a physician to see patients at home daily, which may hinder scalability. Whether remote physician visits can safely substitute for most in-home visits is unknown. Objective: To compare remote and in-home physician care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial assessed 172 adult patients at an academic medical center and community hospital who required hospital-level care for select acute conditions, including infection, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma, between August 3, 2019, and March 26, 2020; follow-up ended April 26, 2020. Interventions: All patients received acute care at home, including in-home nurse or paramedic visits, intravenous medications, remote monitoring, and point-of-care testing. Patients were randomized to receive physician care remotely (initial in-home visit followed by daily video visit facilitated by the home hospital nurse) vs in-home care (daily in-home physician visit). In the remote care group, the physician could choose to see the patient at home beyond the first visit if it was felt to be medically necessary. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of adverse events, compared using multivariable Poisson regression at a noninferiority threshold of 10 events per 100 patients. Adverse events included a fall, pressure injury, and delirium. Secondary outcomes included the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire 15 score (scale of 0-15, with 0 indicating worst patient experience and 15 indicating best patient experience) and 30-day readmission rates. Results: A total of 172 patients (84 receiving remote care and 88 receiving in-home physician care [control group]) were randomized; enrollment was terminated early because of COVID-19. The mean (SD) age was 69.3 (18.0) years, 97 patients (56.4%) were female, 77 (45.0%) were White, and 42 (24.4%) lived alone. Mean adjusted adverse event count was 6.8 per 100 patients for remote care patients vs 3.9 per 100 patients for control patients, for a difference of 2.8 (95% CI, -3.3 to 8.9), supporting noninferiority. For remote care vs control patients, the mean adjusted Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire 15 score difference was -0.22 (95% CI, -1.00 to 0.56), supporting noninferiority. The mean adjusted 30-day readmission absolute rate difference was 2.28% (95% CI, -3.23% to 7.79%), which was inconclusive. Of patients in the remote group, 16 (19.0%) required in-home visits beyond the first visit. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, remote physician visits were noninferior to in-home physician visits during home hospital care for adverse events and patient experience, although in-home physician care was necessary to support many patients receiving remote care. Our findings may allow for a more efficient, scalable home hospital approach but require further research. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04080570.

Indexed as

COVID-19Home Care ServicesPhysiciansAdultAgedFemaleHospitals, CommunityHumansMalePatient Readmission

Identifiers

PMID36040741
PMCPMC9428739
OpenAlexW4293572235

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.