ArticleJAMA network open2024
Virtual Home Care for Patients With Acute Illness.
Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Virtual Wards for Acute Care Patients: A Scoping Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluation of a High-Acuity Next Day Clinic for Hospital Admission Avoidance: A 13-Month Cohort Study.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Single-Dose Liposomal Amphotericin Plus Fluconazole and Flucytosine for Cryptococcal Meningitis at a US Public Hospital.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Remote Patient Monitoring in Hospital at Home: Bibliometric Analysis of the Field and Scoping Review of Nursing Practice.Journal of nursing management · 2026Review
- Patient Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes of Acute Pyelonephritis Treated in Mayo Clinic's Hospital-at-Home Program.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Lessons from a large national "hospital at home" program.Israel journal of health policy research · 2025Article
- The Role of Emergency Medicine in the Hospital-at-Home.Annals of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Health Economic Analysis of an All-Virtual, At-Home Acute Care Model.JAMA network open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
73 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Recent evolutions in clinical care and remote monitoring suggest that some acute illnesses no longer require intravenous therapy and inpatient hospitalization. Objective: To describe outcomes of patients receiving care in a new, outpatient, virtual, home-based acute care model called Safer@Home. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort analysis, conducted from September 1, 2022, through August 31, 2023, included 2466 patients treated at a safety net hospital in Los Angeles County for 10 core illnesses and 24 other acute illnesses for which patients are commonly hospitalized. Exposure: Outpatient, home-based, acute care with virtual monitoring and clinic visits in lieu of inpatient or in-home care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary measure was hospital length of stay. Secondary measures included all-cause mortality, 30-day readmission, return urgent care visit rates, and return emergency department (ED) visit rates. Results: Safer@Home provided care to 876 patients (mean [SD] age, 54.0 [14.5] years; 541 men [61.8%]) during the study period, compared with a cohort of 1590 patients (mean [SD] age, 52.3 [19.6] years; 901 men [56.7%]) with matching diagnoses who received standard, hospital-based care. Safer@Home patients had significantly shorter mean (SD) lengths of inpatient stay than the comparison cohort (1.3 [2.0] vs 5.3 [10.4] days; P < .001), totaling 3505 bed-days avoided (mean [SD], 4.0 [10.6] bed-days saved per patient), with no significant difference in all-cause mortality at last follow-up (2.6% [23 of 876] vs 4.0% [64 of 1590]; P = .07). Safer@Home patients and control patients also had no significant difference in the proportion experiencing 30-day hospital readmission (19.9% [174 of 876] vs 16.7% [266 of 1590]; P = .06). As intended, more Safer@Home than control patients had at least one 30-day return urgent care visit (37.3% [327 of 876] vs 5.2% [82 of 1590]; P < .001). In contrast, the Safer@Home and control cohorts did not significantly differ in experiencing at least one 30-day return ED visit (15.2% [133 of 876] vs 12.5% [199 of 1590]; P = .06). Safer@Home patients had significantly fewer mean (SD) total 30-day return ED visits per patient than control patients (0.19 [0.50] vs 0.21 [0.85]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients receiving acute, virtual, home care with remote monitoring and as-needed return urgent care visits had markedly shorter hospital stays than patients receiving standard inpatient hospital care, with no significant increase in mortality, ED revisits, or return hospitalizations. This new care model is promising for systems that cannot staff Medicare-compliant hospital-at-home visits.
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.