No abstract

Objectives: To determine the proportion of hospitalized inpatients suitable for an acute and subacute home-based inpatient bed substitutive service, to examine the ability of treating teams to identify suitable patients for this service, and to examine potential barriers toward inpatients receiving home-based care. Design: Prospective point prevalence study over 2 days in April 2019; analysis of responses to survey questionnaires regarding the suitability for home-based care among inpatients with multiday admissions to acute and subacute wards in the Royal Melbourne Hospital (RMH), an Australian metropolitan tertiary referral center. Setting and Participants: Ward treating teams, clinicians affiliated with the home-based service called RMH@Home, and inpatients who were subsequently identified as being suitable for home-based care. Measurements: Point prevalence and characteristics of inpatients suitable for a home-based bed substitutive service; identified by either treating teams or RMH@Home clinicians; and barriers to the provision of home-based care among ward inpatients. Results: Survey responses were received for 620 of 635 inpatients [median age 69 years (interquartile range 53e81), 53% male], of which 69 (11.1%) were identified as being suitable for home-based inpatient bed substitution care. Treating team clinicians identified 26 patients, clinicians affiliated with RMH@Home identified a further 43 suitable patients. The most commonly reported barrier (38.1%) toward receiving home-based care was functional disability impeding ability to live at home. Conclusions and Implications: A substantial proportion of hospitalized older patients could use home-based inpatient bed substitutive services. Clinicians experienced in home-based care are more skilled than ward-based clinicians in identifying suitable patients for this care model.

Background The REStORing health of acutely unwell adulTs (RESORT) is an observational longitudinal cohort, including geriatric rehabilitation inpatients aged ≥65 years admitted to a geriatrician‐led rehabilitation service at a tertiary hospital. The aim of this study is to describe a home‐based bed‐substitution rehabilitation model for geriatric inpatients, including patient phenotype, and health outcomes at preadmission, admission, discharge, and three‐month follow‐up. Methods A standardized Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment was performed on admission and discharge, including demographics (home situation, cognitive impairment, medical diagnoses, etc.), frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS)), mobility (patient‐reported and Functional Ambulation Classification), physical performance (Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), handgrip strength), and functional independence (Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Instrumental ADL (IADL)). Service provision data (health care staff visits, length of stay (LOS), and negative events (e.g., falls)) were extracted from medical records. Three‐month outcomes included mobility, ADL and IADL scores, institutionalization, and mortality. Results Ninety‐two patients were included with a mean age of 81.1 ± 7.8 years, 56.5% female. Twenty‐nine (31.5%) patients lived alone, 39 (42.4%) had cognitive impairment and the commonest geriatric rehabilitation admission reason was falls (n = 30, 32.6%). Patients received care from nurses, physicians, and a median of four (interquartile range (IQR) 3–6) allied health disciplines for a median LOS of 13.0 days (IQR 10.0–15.0). On a population level, patient mobility and functional independence worsened from preadmission to admission. CFS, SPPB, ADL, and IADL scores improved from admission to discharge, and seven (7.6%) patients fell. At three‐month follow‐up, patient‐reported mobility was comparable to preadmission baseline, but functional independence (ADL, IADL) scores worsened for 27/69 (39.1%) and 28/63 (44.4%), respectively. Conclusions Hospitalization‐associated decline in mobility and functional independence improved at discharge and three‐months, but was not fully reversed in the multidisciplinary home‐based geriatric rehabilitation bed‐substitution service. Future research should compare outcomes to equivalent hospital‐based geriatric rehabilitation and evaluate patient perspectives.