| Autor: |
Weijers J; Division of Acute Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, The Netherlands., Prins MLM; Division of Acute Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands., van Dam DGHA; Division of Acute Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, St Jans Gasthuis, Weert, The Netherlands., van Nieuwkoop C; Division of Acute Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Haga Teaching Hospital, The Hague, The Netherlands., Alsma J; Division of Acute Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands., Haak HR; Division of Acute Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Máxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, The Netherlands., V Uffen JW; Division of Acute Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands., Kaasjager KAH; Division of Acute Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands., Kremers MNT; Division of Acute Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Máxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, The Netherlands., Nanayakkara PWB; Division of Acute Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands., Stassen PM; Division of Acute Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, School for Cardiovascular Diseases, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands., Groeneveld GH; Division of Acute Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. |
| Abstrakt: |
Objective: To determine patients' perspectives on home monitoring at emergency department (ED) presentation and shortly after admission and compare these with their physicians' perspectives. Methods: Forty Dutch hospitals participated in this prospective flash mob study. Adult patients with acute medical conditions, treated by internal medicine specialties, presenting at the ED or admitted at the admission ward within the previous 24 h were included. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who were able and willing to undergo home monitoring. Secondary outcomes included identifying barriers to home monitoring, patient's prerequisites, and assessing the agreement between the perspectives of patients and treating physicians. Results: On February 2, 2023, in total 665 patients [median age 69 (interquartile range: 55-78) years; 95.5% community dwelling; 29.3% Modified Early Warning Score ≥3; 29.5% clinical frailty score ≥5] were included. In total, 19.6% of ED patients were admitted and 26% of ward patients preferred home monitoring as continuation of care. Guaranteed readmission (87.8%), ability to contact the hospital 24/7 (77.3%), and a family caregiver at home (55.7%) were the most often reported prerequisites. Barriers for home monitoring were feeling too severely ill (78.8%) and inability to receive the required treatment at home (64.4%). The agreement between patients and physicians was fair (Cohens kappa coefficient 0.26). Conclusions: A substantial proportion of acutely ill patients stated that they were willing and able to be monitored at home. Guaranteed readmission, availability of a treatment team (24/7), and a home support system are needed for successful implementation of home monitoring in acute care. |
