PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society· 2026Q1

Local Adaptations of Hospital in Home: Variations in Structure and Implementation Across Six VA Programs

Akanksha N Samant, Sungjae Park, Emily C Franzosa, Orna Intrator et al.

Short summary

Six VA Hospital in Home (HIH) programs show significant variation in patient mix (6%-85% transfer patients), referral sources for substitutive stays (67%-83% from HBPC, primary care, specialty clinics, EDs), and team composition (4-7 RNs, 1-2 physicians FTEs), despite similar core procedures and 24/7 team access.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Patient mix varied significantly, with transfer patients comprising 6% to 85% of HIH stays across six VA programs.
  • Referral sources for substitutive HIH stays included HBPC (67%), outpatient primary care (83%), specialty clinics (67%), and EDs (83%).
  • Interdisciplinary team composition varied, with 4-7 FTE RNs and 1.0-2.0 FTE physicians per program.
  • Annual unique patient served per program ranged from 63 to 146 Veterans.
  • Outcome metrics tracked by programs included readmission (67%), cost avoidance (50%), and length of stay (50%).

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background The VA Hospital in Home (HIH) model of care delivers acute‐level hospital care to Veterans at home across the country. We aim to examine the similarities and differences in the structure and implementation of existing HIH programs across sites to identify best practices that optimize resources, ensure high‐quality care, and enhance sustainability and scalability of the program. Methods A total of 6 out of 11 existing VA HIH programs reported on their program through structured presentations at Community‐of‐Practice meetings in 2022. Additional site‐level characteristics were retrieved from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse to describe context at each program and to identify HIH encounters, types of stays, and numbers of HIH patients for each site. Results All sites offered transfer (from hospital‐based inpatient service) and substitutive (from other than inpatient) HIH stays, though the proportion of patients for each varied (transfer patients ranging from 6% to 85%). Referral sources for substitutive stays varied across sites including Home‐Based Primary Care (HBPC) (67%), outpatient primary care (83%), specialty care clinics (67%), and emergency departments (83%). Each program had interdisciplinary teams, though composition and staff size varied (4–7 full‐time equivalent [FTE] RNs; 1.0–2.0 FTE physicians). Programs varied in the number of unique patients served per program (63–146 unique HIH Veterans annually). Programs reported similar procedures in clinical evaluation, informed consent, and maintaining 24/7 access to the HIH team. Outcome metrics tracked include readmission (67%), cost avoidance (50%), and length of stay (50%). Additionally, 50% of sites reported integrating ancillary services and introducing program adaptations during the COVID‐19 pandemic period such as virtual follow‐up visits. Conclusion Our study identified similarities and differences across the existing HIH programs, adapting to local contexts while maintaining quality of care. These characteristics may reflect differences in population and site characteristics, patient needs, and program goals.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: General Health Professions

General Health ProfessionsHealth Professions