ArticleBMJ open2025
How Dutch initiatives to early discharge COVID-19 patients were organised during the pandemic: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe steep rise in hospital admissions during the COVID-19 pandemic put a strain on available resources and provision of adequate healthcare globally. Translocation of care to the home setting through early discharge with remote monitoring has the potential to relieve pressure on the hospital care system, reduce costs and could simultaneously benefit patients' well-being.
objectiveProvide an overview of similarities, differences and outcomes of early discharge initiatives for COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands to foster future development of safe and effective 'hospital at home interventions'.
designGrey and academic literature searches from 1 March 2020 to 1 December 2024 to identify initiatives that discharged COVID-19 patients early through a remote monitoring intervention.
settingThe Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS AND
interventionsHospitals that initiated an early discharge programme for COVID-19 patients. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We descriptively compared the available protocols to identify similarities and differences in the execution of the early discharge process. Next, we compared clinical outcomes as reported in available publications and retrieved from post-publication follow-up data collection.
resultsWe retrieved 15 protocols (55.6%) and six publications (5 retrospective cohorts, 1 randomised controlled trial) of 27 early discharge initiatives. Two initiatives provided follow-up data. Overall, initiatives were fairly similar, however, with differences in (i) patient selection, (ii) the responsible physician, (iii) the duration and parameters of monitoring and (iv) use of a dedicated monitoring centre. Readmission rates were low, and deaths did not occur except for one initiative (n=8, 3.8%). Patient satisfaction assessed by questionnaires was very high.
conclusionThis study provides insights into the design and potential of early discharge initiatives with remote monitoring launched in the Netherlands during the COVID-19 pandemic. Preliminary data suggest relatively low readmission and mortality rates, and good patient acceptance, but future research should provide definitive conclusions.
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.