BACKGROUND: The emerging attention on in-home care in Canada assumes that chronic disease management will be optimized if it takes place in the community as opposed to the health care setting. Both the patient and the health care system will benefit, the latter in terms of cost savings. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of care delivered in the home (i.e., in-home care) with no home care or with usual care/care received outside of the home (e.g., health care setting). DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed on January 25, 2012, using OVID MEDLINE, OVID MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, OVID EMBASE, EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Wiley Cochrane Library, and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database, for studies published from January 1, 2006, until January 25, 2012. REVIEW METHODS: An evidence-based analysis examined whether there is a difference in mortality, hospital utilization, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), functional status, and disease-specific clinical measures for in-home care compared with no home care for heart failure, atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, chronic wounds, and chronic disease / multimorbidity. Data was abstracted and analyzed in a pooled analysis using Review Manager. When needed, subgroup analysis was performed to address heterogeneity. The quality of evidence was assessed by GRADE. RESULTS: The systematic literature search identified 1,277 citations from which 12 randomized controlled trials met the study criteria. Based on these, a 12% reduced risk for in-home care was shown for the outcome measure of combined events including all-cause mortality and hospitalizations (relative risk [RR]: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80-0.97). Patients receiving in-home care had an average of 1 less unplanned hospitalization (mean difference [MD]: -1.03; 95% CI: -1.53 to -0.53) and an average of 1 less emergency department (ED) visit (MD: -1.32; 95% CI: -1.87 to -0.77). A beneficial effect of in-home care was also shown on activities of daily living (MD: -0.14; 95% CI: -0.27 to -0.01), including less difficulty dressing above the waist or below the waist, grooming, bathing/showering, toileting, and feeding. These results were based on moderate quality of evidence. Additional beneficial effects of in-home care were shown for HRQOL although this was based on low quality of evidence. LIMITATIONS: Different characterization of outcome measures across studies prevented the inclusion of all eligible studies for analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, education-based in-home care is effective at improving outcomes of patients with a range of heart disease severity when delivered by nurses during a single home visit or on an ongoing basis. In-home visits by occupational therapists and physical therapists targeting modification of tasks and the home environment improved functional activities for community-living adults with chronic disease.
BACKGROUND: The emerging attention on in-home care in Canada assumes that chronic disease management will be optimized if it takes place in the community as opposed to the health care setting. Both the patient and the health care system will benefit, the latter in terms of cost savings. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of care delivered in the home (i.e., in-home care) with no home care or with usual care/care received outside of the home (e.g., health care setting). DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed on January 25, 2012, using OVID MEDLINE, OVID MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, OVID EMBASE, EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Wiley Cochrane Library, and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database, for studies published from January 1, 2006, until January 25, 2012. REVIEW METHODS: An evidence-based analysis examined whether there is a difference in mortality, hospital utilization, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), functional status, and disease-specific clinical measures for in-home care compared with no home care for heart failure, atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, chronic wounds, and chronic disease / multimorbidity. Data was abstracted and analyzed in a pooled analysis using Review Manager. When needed, subgroup analysis was performed to address heterogeneity. The quality of evidence was assessed by GRADE. RESULTS: The systematic literature search identified 1,277 citations from which 12 randomized controlled trials met the study criteria. Based on these, a 12% reduced risk for in-home care was shown for the outcome measure of combined events including all-cause mortality and hospitalizations (relative risk [RR]: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80-0.97). Patients receiving in-home care had an average of 1 less unplanned hospitalization (mean difference [MD]: -1.03; 95% CI: -1.53 to -0.53) and an average of 1 less emergency department (ED) visit (MD: -1.32; 95% CI: -1.87 to -0.77). A beneficial effect of in-home care was also shown on activities of daily living (MD: -0.14; 95% CI: -0.27 to -0.01), including less difficulty dressing above the waist or below the waist, grooming, bathing/showering, toileting, and feeding. These results were based on moderate quality of evidence. Additional beneficial effects of in-home care were shown for HRQOL although this was based on low quality of evidence. LIMITATIONS: Different characterization of outcome measures across studies prevented the inclusion of all eligible studies for analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, education-based in-home care is effective at improving outcomes of patients with a range of heart disease severity when delivered by nurses during a single home visit or on an ongoing basis. In-home visits by occupational therapists and physical therapists targeting modification of tasks and the home environment improved functional activities for community-living adults with chronic disease.
Authors: Simon Stewart; Melinda J Carrington; Thomas H Marwick; Patricia M Davidson; Peter Macdonald; John D Horowitz; Henry Krum; Phillip J Newton; Christopher Reid; Yih Kai Chan; Paul A Scuffham Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: T S Rector; L K Tschumperlin; S H Kubo; A J Bank; G S Francis; K M McDonald; C A Keeler; M A Silver Journal: J Card Fail Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Kathleen W Wyrwich; John A Spertus; Kurt Kroenke; William M Tierney; Ajit N Babu; Fredric D Wolinsky Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Luke Mondor; Colleen J Maxwell; Susan E Bronskill; Andrea Gruneir; Walter P Wodchis Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Salvador Tortajada; María Soledad Giménez-Campos; Julia Villar-López; Raquel Faubel-Cava; Lucas Donat-Castelló; Bernardo Valdivieso-Martínez; Elisa Soriano-Melchor; Amparo Bahamontes-Mulió; Juan M García-Gómez Journal: Int J Integr Care Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 5.120