Lieselot Cool1, Jana Missiaen2, Dominique Vandijck3, Tessa Lefebvre4, Michelle Lycke5, Pieter Jan De Jonghe6, Philippe Vergauwe7, Veerle Foulon8, Hans Pottel9, Philip Debruyne10, Koen Van Eygen11. 1. Cancer Centre, General Hospital Groeninge, Pres. Kennedylaan 4, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185, 3K3, 9000, Gent, Belgium. Electronic address: lieselot.cool@azgroeninge.be. 2. Cancer Centre, General Hospital Groeninge, Pres. Kennedylaan 4, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium. Electronic address: jana.missiaen@azgroeninge.be. 3. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185, 3K3, 9000, Gent, Belgium. Electronic address: dominique.vandijck@ugent.be. 4. Cancer Centre, General Hospital Groeninge, Pres. Kennedylaan 4, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium. Electronic address: tessa.lefebvre@azgroeninge.be. 5. Cancer Centre, General Hospital Groeninge, Pres. Kennedylaan 4, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium. Electronic address: michelle.lycke@azgroeninge.be. 6. Hospital Pharmacy, General Hospital Groeninge, Pres. Kennedylaan 4, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium. Electronic address: pieterjan.dejonghe@azgroeninge.be. 7. Cancer Centre, General Hospital Groeninge, Pres. Kennedylaan 4, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium. Electronic address: philippe.vergauwe@azgroeninge.be. 8. Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Catholic University Leuven, O&N II, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: veerle.foulon@kuleuven.be. 9. Department of Public Health and Primary Care @ Kulak, Catholic University Leuven, Kulak Etienne Sabbelaan 53, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium. Electronic address: hans.pottel@kuleuven.be. 10. Cancer Centre, General Hospital Groeninge, Pres. Kennedylaan 4, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium; Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Anglia Ruskin University, Bishop Hall Lane, Chelmsford, CM1 1SQ, UK. Electronic address: philip.debruyne@azgroeninge.be. 11. Cancer Centre, General Hospital Groeninge, Pres. Kennedylaan 4, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium. Electronic address: koen.vaneygen@azgroeninge.be.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility of oncological home-hospitalization and to compare its quality with standard ambulatory hospital care in terms of patient-reported quality of life and related endpoints by means of a set of validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: An observational cohort study (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03073499) was conducted, allocating patients to (partial) home-hospitalization or standard ambulatory hospital care. PROMs were completed by both cohorts at start of treatment and eight weeks later. An additional study-specific questionnaire was presented to the intervention cohort at study-end assessing their satisfaction with and preferences for the provided homecare. RESULTS: Thirty patients received home-hospitalization, corresponding to 116 interventions. For twenty-eight patients, this comprised all assessments required prior to administration of treatment, which resulted in a significant reduction of waiting time for treatment administration at the hospital in comparison with the control cohort (n = 24) (average reduction of 1:12 h, p < 0.001). Two patients received actual subcutaneous therapy at home. None of the PROM's evaluated revealed significant differences between both cohorts (all p > 0.05). 29/30 patients of the intervention cohort were satisfied with the provided homecare and preferred to have it continued, 22/25 patients declared to feel at home at least as safe as in the hospital. No serious safety concerns were reported. CONCLUSION: The results of this pilot study suggest that (partial) oncological home-hospitalization is feasible, safe and statistically not affecting patient-reported quality of life. Furthermore, this care model was acceptable and preferred by a substantial number of cancer patients.
PURPOSE: The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility of oncological home-hospitalization and to compare its quality with standard ambulatory hospital care in terms of patient-reported quality of life and related endpoints by means of a set of validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: An observational cohort study (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03073499) was conducted, allocating patients to (partial) home-hospitalization or standard ambulatory hospital care. PROMs were completed by both cohorts at start of treatment and eight weeks later. An additional study-specific questionnaire was presented to the intervention cohort at study-end assessing their satisfaction with and preferences for the provided homecare. RESULTS: Thirty patients received home-hospitalization, corresponding to 116 interventions. For twenty-eight patients, this comprised all assessments required prior to administration of treatment, which resulted in a significant reduction of waiting time for treatment administration at the hospital in comparison with the control cohort (n = 24) (average reduction of 1:12 h, p < 0.001). Two patients received actual subcutaneous therapy at home. None of the PROM's evaluated revealed significant differences between both cohorts (all p > 0.05). 29/30 patients of the intervention cohort were satisfied with the provided homecare and preferred to have it continued, 22/25 patients declared to feel at home at least as safe as in the hospital. No serious safety concerns were reported. CONCLUSION: The results of this pilot study suggest that (partial) oncological home-hospitalization is feasible, safe and statistically not affecting patient-reported quality of life. Furthermore, this care model was acceptable and preferred by a substantial number of cancerpatients.
Authors: Lieselot Cool; Jana Missiaen; Philip Debruyne; Hans Pottel; Veerle Foulon; Tessa Lefebvre; Laura Tack; Petra Archie; Dominique Vandijck; Koen Van Eygen Journal: JCO Glob Oncol Date: 2021-09