ArticleOpen heart2023
Heart failure management at home: a non-randomised prospective case-controlled trial (HeMan at Home).
Article in Open heart, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping the landscape of Hospital at home (HaH) care: a validated taxonomy for HaH care model classification.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Scoping review of the effectiveness of 10 high-impact initiatives (HIIs) for recovering urgent and emergency care services.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesHeart failure (HF) is a growing clinical and economic burden for patients and health systems. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to avoidance and delay in care, resulting in increased morbidity and mortality among many patients with HF. The increasing burden of HF during the COVID-19 pandemic led us to evaluate the quality and safety of the Hospital at Home (HAH) for patients presenting to their community providers or emergency department (ED) with symptoms of acute on chronic HF (CHF) requiring admission. DESIGN/OUTCOMES: A non-randomised prospective case-controlled of patients enrolled in the HAH versus admission to the hospital (usual care, UC). Primary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), adverse events, discharge disposition and patient satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included 30-day readmission rates, 30-day ED usage and ED dwell time.
resultsSixty patients met inclusion/exclusion criteria and were included in the study. Of the 60 patients, 40 were in the HAH and 20 were in the UC group. Primary outcomes demonstrated that HAH patients had slightly longer LOS (6.3 days vs 4.7 days); however, fewer adverse events (12.5% vs 35%) compared with the UC group. Those enrolled in the HAH programme were less likely to be discharged with postacute services (skilled nursing facility or home health). HAH was associated with increased patient satisfaction compared with Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) score in North Carolina. Secondary outcomes of 30-day readmission and ED usage were similar between HAH and UC.
conclusionsThe HAH pilot programme was shown to be a safe and effective alternative to hospitalisation for the appropriately selected patient presenting with acute on CHF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.