Oncologic Home-Hospitalization Delivers a High-Quality and Patient-Centered Alternative to Standard Ambulatory Care: Results of a Randomized-Controlled Equivalence Trial.

PURPOSE: Given the increasing burden of cancer on patients, health care providers, and payers, the shift of certain outpatient procedures to the patients' homes (further indicated as oncologic home-hospitalization [OHH]) might be a high-quality, patient-centered, and cost-effective alternative to standard ambulatory cancer care (SOC). METHODS: A randomized-controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the quality of a locally implemented model for OHH (n = 74) compared with SOC (n = 74). The model for OHH consisted of home administration of certain subcutaneous cancer drugs (full OHH) and home nursing assessments before ambulatory systemic cancer therapy (partial OHH). Quality was evaluated based on patient-reported quality of life (QoL) and related end points; service use and cost data; safety data; patient-reported satisfaction and preferences; and model efficiency. An equivalence design was used for primary end point analysis. Participants were followed during 12 weeks of systemic cancer treatment. RESULTS: This trial demonstrated equivalence of both models (OHH v SOC) in terms of patient-reported QoL (95% CI not exceeding the equivalence margin of 10%). Full OHH resulted in significantly less hospital visits (mean of 5.6 ± 3.0 v 13.2 ± 4.6; P = .011). Partial OHH reduced waiting times for therapy administration at the day care unit with 45% per visit (2 hours 36 minutes ± 1 hour 4 minutes v 4 hours ± 1 hour 4 minutes; P < .001). No safety issues were detected. Of the intervention group, 88% reported to be highly satisfied with the OHH model, and 77% reported a positive impact on their QoL. At study end, 60% of both study arms preferred OHH above SOC. CONCLUSION: The shift of particular procedures from the outpatient clinic to the patients' homes offers a high-quality and patient-centered alternative for a large proportion of patients with cancer. Further research is needed to evaluate potential cost-efficiency.

Quality of blood samples collected at home does not affect clinical decision making for the administration of systemic cancer treatment.

The aim of this exploratory clinical study was to evaluate whether the preanalytical quality of blood samples subjected to delayed centrifugation and transport - as a result of home-sampling - is affected in a way it alters the clinical decision-making for patients under systemic cancer therapy. This evaluation is part of a comprehensive investigation of the opportunities for oncological home-hospitalization. Forty-nine patients with cancer donated two additional blood samples during their ambulatory hospital visit. Fifteen blood analytes were compared between routine blood samples and samples that were subjected to transport and delayed centrifugation in order to mimic a locally implemented model for oncological home-hospitalisation. Deviations were analysed by means of Deming regression. For those analytes showing statistically significant intercepts and/or slopes, the mean deviations were compared to the desirable analytical bias; and the intra-individual differences were compared with the limits for clinical decision-making. Statistically significant intercepts and/or slopes were observed for haematocrit (HCT), mean cellular volume (MCV), platelets count (PLT) and C-reactive protein (CRP). Differences exceeding the allowable margins of desirable analytical bias were observed for HCT and MCV. Risk of different clinical decision-making couldn't be observed for any of the analytes showing statistically significant differences. These results demonstrate that home-collection of blood samples, transported at room temperature and centrifuged within a mean time of five hours after sampling, has no effect on clinical decision-making with regards to systemic cancer therapy. However, attention should be paid to the potential occurrence of haemolysis during the preanalytical phase, which can negatively influence haemolysis-dependent variables.

Shifting specialized oncological care from hospital- to home-setting: is there support among patients, specialists and general practitioners?

OBJECTIVES: Oncological home-hospitalization (OHH) might be a patient-centred approach to deal with the increasing burden of cancer on health-care facilities and finances. Before implementation into practice, its feasibility, costs and support among stakeholders should be evaluated. The purpose of this trial was to explore patients', specialists' and general practitioners' (GPs) perspectives towards the opportunities of implementing OHH within the Belgian health-care system. METHODS: A regional cross-sectional survey study was launched in order to investigate the stakeholders' views on OHH and the current cancer care focusing on integration of primary care and continuous care. RESULTS: Of the responders, 37 out of 163 patients (23%), 45 of 62 GPs (73%) and 10 of 15 specialists (67%) feel positive about the opportunities for OHH. Nevertheless, 11/15 specialists (73%) and 51/62 GPs (82%) feel primary care might currently be (too) little involved in order to ensure continuous care for cancer patients. Opportunities for improved continuous care are seen in better communication between primary care and hospital, and more patient contacts for primary care during the cancer treatment process. CONCLUSION: The results of this local survey study demonstrated there is support among different stakeholder groups for the implementation of OHH within the Belgian health-care context. However, some barriers impeding transmural continuous care should be tackled before implementing such model into practice. Better communication between health-care professionals and more patients contacts are suggested, and an adjusted legal and financial framework is required.

An observational pilot study to evaluate the feasibility and quality of oncological home-hospitalization.

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.