Home Hospital Care Beneficial for Acute Illness in Rural Settings

FRIDAY, Dec. 5, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- For patients with acute illness, home hospital care seems beneficial in a rural setting, according to a study published online Dec. 1 in JAMA Network Open.David M. Levine, M.D., M.P.H., from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, and colleagues compared home hospital care with brick-and-mortar (BAM) hospital care for patients residing in rural areas who required hospital-level care for select acute conditions (infections, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma, and other diagnoses). Patients in the home hospital group received acute care at home, while those in the BAM group received services at a rural BAM hospital.The researchers found that the adjusted mean cost of the acute episode did not differ significantly between the groups. No significant differences were seen in 30-day readmission or mean days at home within 30 days of discharge. Patients in the home hospital group were less sedentary than those in the BAM group (mean, 78 versus 86 percent of the day sedentary) and had more mean steps daily (834.1 versus 120.4 steps). No significant difference was seen in the total mean length of stay (BAM and home hospital days for intervention patients versus BAM days for control patients). Compared to patients in the BAM hospital group, patients in the home hospital group reported better experiences (mean Picker experience score, 13.4 versus 11.0; mean net-promoter score, 88.4 versus 45.5)."Hospital-level care delivered in patients' homes has improved healthcare delivery in urban settings but may fill an even greater need in rural areas, where longer transit times, poor accessibility, and hospital closures challenge access to high quality care," Levine said in a statement.One author received personal fees from Biofourmis and Feminai.Abstract/Full Text.Sign up for our weekly HealthDay newsletter

Home Hospital Care Beneficial for Acute Illness in Rural Settings

Related Stories