Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40780723›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Transforming acute care: a scoping review on the effectiveness, safety and implementation challenges of Hospital-at-Home models.

Khos Sultani, Marian Smeulers, Ralph de Vries, Barbara Maria Zonderhuis, Prabath W B Nanayakkara

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Caregiver Burden at the Onset of Acute Hospital-At-Home.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2026
    Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

5 authors.

Khos SultaniAcute Internal Medicine, Amsterdam UMC Locatie VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands k.sultani@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-5832-0425
Marian SmeulersDivision of Outpatient Department, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ralph de VriesAmsterdam UMC Locatie VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Barbara Maria ZonderhuisSurgery Department, Amsterdam UMC Locatie VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Prabath W B NanayakkaraSection Acute Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam Universitair Medische Centra, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe hospital-at-home (HaH) model has gained traction as a viable alternative to traditional inpatient care, allowing patients to receive care in their own homes. Despite its growing popularity, there is a lack of comprehensive research addressing effectiveness, safety and factors critical to the successful implementation of HaH programmes. We conducted a scoping review to comprehensively map and summarise the evidence on both admission avoidance and early-supported discharge up until now.

designA scoping review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science were systematically searched up to July 2024 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included English-language RCTs published from 2005 onwards, involving adults (≥18 years) receiving acute care at home who would otherwise require hospital admission. Eligible studies evaluated admission avoidance or early supported discharge within HaH settings for acutely ill patients. Studies focusing on outpatient care, non-acute conditions or interventions not aligning with the widely accepted HaH definition were excluded. COVID-19-related studies were also excluded to avoid context-specific bias. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics, interventions and outcomes including mortality, length of stay, escalation rates, costs and patient and caregiver satisfaction. Implementation facilitators and barriers were also collected. Discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. Results were synthesised descriptively in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines.

resultsNine RCTs were identified. The review shows that the HaH model is at least as safe as usual care, with lower or comparable mortality rates. Length of stay varied, with some studies reporting longer stays in the HaH group due to cautious clinical practices. Cost analyses often indicate lower healthcare costs with staffing as the largest expense. Patient and caregiver satisfaction was high, but essential implementation factors were not clearly addressed.

conclusionThe HaH model represents a promising alternative to acute inpatient care for suitable patients. Future research should focus on conducting larger RCTs, expanding the range of conditions suitable for HaH. Despite favourable clinical outcomes, substantial implementation barriers remain underexplored in current RCTs. This underscores the need to identify strategies for successful implementation, including the integration of technological advancements and qualitative insights into patient and caregiver experiences.

Indexed as

Home Care Services, Hospital-BasedHumansPatient DischargePatient SafetyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHealth ServicesHospitalizationMortality

Identifiers

PMID40780723
PMCPMC12336546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.