Oncology hospital at home in rural communities: The Huntsman at Home rural experience.

Abstract

1535 Background: Oncology hospital at home programs have shown promise in decreasing unplanned health care utilization while improving quality of life. While most hospital at home programs serve local urban areas, we extended our oncology hospital at home program, Huntsman at Home, to provide equitable distribution of program services for cancer patients living in rural communities at a distance from our cancer center. Methods: Utilizing a community engagement approach we redesigned our urban Huntsman at Home program for 3 rural communities in Southeastern Utah, a 2 to 5 hour one-way drive from Huntsman Cancer Institute. We systematically collected patient data and program modifications required for rural community delivery during the program’s first 6 months. Care was delivered by on-ground and telehealth nurse practitioner visits and on-ground registered nurse and physical therapy visits. Cardiovascular remote monitoring was utilized during acute care episodes. Results: A total of 47 cancer patients (31 men; 16 women; mean age 69 years) were admitted to the rural program during the first 6 months. Seven patients had 9 acute illness episodes of care. The average length of acute episode care was 6.1 days for treatment of infection, respiratory distress/ hypoxia, cardiac instability (hypotension, tachycardia), and dehydration/electrolyte imbalance and uncontrolled vomiting. Forty patients received subacute management aimed to prevent acute episodes and escalation to the emergency department (ED) or hospitalization. Subacute patients were in the program an average of 15.8 days. There were 4 appropriate escalations (2 hospitalizations, 1 ED visit returned to home and 1 ED visit with hospitalization) for symptoms related to disease progression requiring imaging and hospital-based procedures and one for diagnosis of a post-surgical PE. We found geographic and social determinates of health impacted rural patients’ cancer burden, most notably transportation barriers (44.7%). Secondarily, we found food insecurity impacted nutritional status in 14.9% of patients. A significant number of patients experienced financial toxicity (29.8%) related to lost wages, co-pays and/or out of pocket expenses for care. Lack of health literacy impacted 48.9% of patients effectively navigating their health care and self-management at home. Robust communication and coordination between the hospital at home clinical team, local primary care providers, the rural hospital, community resources and the patients’ cancer center oncology team were keys to improving care pathways. Conclusions: Rural oncology hospital at home is feasible and addresses geographic disparities in equitable access to acute and subacute cancer care in local communities. It requires adaptation to rural needs and culture, coordinated escalation procedures and a focus on addressing geographic and social determinates of health that impact cancer burden.