To determine the proportion of hospitalized inpatients suitable for an acute and subacute home-based inpatient bed substitutive service, to examine the ability of treating teams to identify suitable patients for this service, and to examine potential barriers toward inpatients receiving home-based care. Prospective point prevalence study over 2 days in April 2019; analysis of responses to survey questionnaires regarding the suitability for home-based care among inpatients with multiday admissions to acute and subacute wards in the Royal Melbourne Hospital (RMH), an Australian metropolitan tertiary referral center. Ward treating teams, clinicians affiliated with the home-based service called RMH@Home, and inpatients who were subsequently identified as being suitable for home-based care. Point prevalence and characteristics of inpatients suitable for a home-based bed substitutive service; identified by either treating teams or RMH@Home clinicians; and barriers to the provision of home-based care among ward inpatients. Survey responses were received for 620 of 635 inpatients [median age 69 years (interquartile range 53-81), 53% male], of which 69 (11.1%) were identified as being suitable for home-based inpatient bed substitution care. Treating team clinicians identified 26 patients, clinicians affiliated with RMH@Home identified a further 43 suitable patients. The most commonly reported barrier (38.1%) toward receiving home-based care was functional disability impeding ability to live at home. A substantial proportion of hospitalized older patients could use home-based inpatient bed substitutive services. Clinicians experienced in home-based care are more skilled than ward-based clinicians in identifying suitable patients for this care model.

Objectives To assess the capacity of the COVID Positive Pathway, a collaborative model of care involving the Victorian public health unit, hospital services, primary care, community organisations, and the North Western Melbourne Primary Health Network, to support people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) isolating at home. Design, setting, participants Cohort study of adults in northwest Melbourne with COVID-19, 3 August - 31 December 2020. Main outcome measures Demographic and clinical characteristics, and social and welfare needs of people cared for in the Pathway, by care tier level. Results Of 1392 people referred to the Pathway by the public health unit, 858 were eligible for enrolment, and 711 consented to participation; 647 (91%) remained in the Pathway until they had recovered and isolation was no longer required. A total of 575 participants (81%) received care in primary care, mostly from their usual general practitioners; 155 people (22%) received care from hospital outreach services, and 64 (9%) needed high tier care (hospitalisation). Assistance with food and other basic supplies was required by 239 people in the Pathway (34%). Conclusions The COVID Positive Pathway is a feasible multidisciplinary, tiered model of care for people with COVID-19. About 80% of participants could be adequately supported by primary care and community organisations, allowing hospital services to be reserved for people with more severe illness or with risk factors for disease progression. The principles of this model could be applied to other health conditions if regulatory and funding barriers to information-sharing and care delivery by health care providers can be overcome.

Background: Antimicrobial stewardship programmes are important in driving safety and quality of antimicrobial prescribing. The National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey (NAPS) is a point-prevalence audit of inpatient antimicrobial prescribing in Australian hospitals.Objectives: To design and adapt the NAPS tool for use in the outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) and hospital-in-the-home (HITH) setting.Methods: An inter-disciplinary working group with expertise in OPAT and HITH services was established to adapt the NAPS template for use in the OPAT setting—called HITH-NAPS. This was initially trialled in 5 HITH services, subsequently adapted following participant feedback, then offered nationally to 50 services in 2017.Results: There were 1154 prescriptions for 715 patients audited via the HITH-NAPS. The most common antimicrobials prescribed were cefazolin (22%), flucloxacillin (12%), piperacillin/tazobactam (10%) and ceftriaxone (10%). The most common infections treated were cellulitis (30%) and respiratory tract infections (14%). Eighty-seven percent of prescriptions were assessed as appropriate, 11% inappropriate and 2% not assessable. Prolonged durations of antimicrobials and unnecessarily broad-spectrum antibiotics were used in 9% of prescriptions.Conclusions: The HITH-NAPS pilot project revealed that auditing of this type is feasible in HITH. It showed that antibiotic use in these HITH services was generally appropriate, but there are some areas for improvement. A national OPAT/HITH-NAPS can facilitate benchmarking between services, identify potentially inappropriate prescribing and help guide quality improvement.

Background: Robust serological assays are essential for long-term control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many recently released point-of-care (PoCT) serological assays have been distributed with little pre-market validation. Methods: Performance characteristics for five PoCT lateral flow devices approved for use in Australia were compared to a commercial enzyme immunoassay (ELISA) and a recently described novel surrogate virus neutralisation test (sVNT). Results: Sensitivities for PoCT ranged from 51.8% (95% CI 43.1 to 60.4%) to 67.9% (95% CI 59.4–75.6%), and specificities from 95.6% (95% CI 89.2–98.8%) to 100.0% (95% CI 96.1–100.0%). Overall ELISA sensitivity for either IgA or IgG detection was 67.9% (95% CI 59.4–75.6), increasing to 93.8% (95% CI 85.0–98.3%) for samples > 14 days post symptom onset. Overall, sVNT sensitivity was 60.9% (95% CI 53.2–68.4%), rising to 91.2%% (95% CI 81.8–96.7%) for samples collected > 14 days post-symptom onset, with a specificity 94.4% (95% CI 89.2–97.5%), Conclusion: Performance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays were generally lower than those reported by manufacturers. Timing of specimen collection relative to onset of illness or infection is crucial in the reporting of performance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays. The optimal algorithm for implementing serological testing for COVID-19 remains to be determined, particularly in low-prevalence settings.

Hospitalised, unwell patients have vital signs such as heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation (SpO₂) and temperature measured multiple times a day to detect clinical deterioration and monitor health trajectories. Advancements in contact-free (ambient) sensors (AS) to measure vital signs can help mitigate risks due to skin injury and infection transmission seen in conventional hospital equipment. This prospective, observational clinical study aims to validate vital sign measurements from a multi-channel AS compared to conventional equipment in three cohorts: patients in a hospital ward, patients at home within a Hospital-at-Home service, and healthy volunteers. Data analysis of 571 paired measurements from 29 participants indicates that heart rate measurements via AS were accurate, though they lacked precision, with the clinical agreement range between 6.38 and 6.49 beats per minute. Temperature and oxygen saturation measurements showed less agreement when compared with the reference standard. In conclusion, ambient sensors show promising utility in measuring vital signs, with this study amongst the first of its kind to utilise this in measuring vital signs in hospitalised patient cohorts in both ward and home environments.