Ovarian cancer patients often experience persistent symptoms such as fatigue and pain, impacting their quality of life. Current follow-up care, focused primarily on recurrence detection, may not adequately address these symptoms and can be burdensome. This study evaluates the feasibility of remote monitoring using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and measurements of weight and abdominal circumference as an alternative to standard hospital visits. We aim to assess feasibility (ie, usability and satisfaction) of this approach and identify implementation barriers and facilitators.

This study is a single-centre longitudinal observational pilot that uses both qualitative and quantitative data to evaluate the feasibility of an innovative remote monitoring system for ovarian cancer follow-up care (Controle op Afstand, CopA). It is accessible to both healthcare professionals in the electronic health record and patients through the patient portal. Instead of 3-monthly in-hospital visits, patients are invited to complete regular surveys assessing PROMS about symptoms and quality of life and home measurements of weight and abdominal circumference. Feasibility will be assessed by (1) analysing patient and healthcare professional (HCP) experiences with CopA with the Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations questionnaire for HCPs, and the ‘Experienced Usability and Satisfaction with Self-monitoring in the Home Setting’ questionnaire for patients, (2) investigating implementation barriers and facilitators using qualitative method and (3) performing a process evaluation of the intervention, assessing components such as reach, fidelity and compliance, time to response and number of (tele)consultations during the study period. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data will be analysed using thematic analysis.

This study was reviewed by the Ethics Committee of the Amsterdam University Medical Centre (METC 2022.0256) and exempted it from further review as this study was not subject to the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subject Act. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed open-access publications, scientific conferences and targeted communication to patient organisations, healthcare providers and the wider public.

The hospital-at-home (HaH) model has gained traction as a viable alternative to traditional inpatient care, allowing patients to receive care in their own homes. Despite its growing popularity, there is a lack of comprehensive research addressing effectiveness, safety and factors critical to the successful implementation of HaH programmes. We conducted a scoping review to comprehensively map and summarise the evidence on both admission avoidance and early-supported discharge up until now.

A scoping review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines.

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science were systematically searched up to July 2024

We included English-language RCTs published from 2005 onwards, involving adults (≥18 years) receiving acute care at home who would otherwise require hospital admission. Eligible studies evaluated admission avoidance or early supported discharge within HaH settings for acutely ill patients. Studies focusing on outpatient care, non-acute conditions or interventions not aligning with the widely accepted HaH definition were excluded. COVID-19-related studies were also excluded to avoid context-specific bias.

Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics, interventions and outcomes including mortality, length of stay, escalation rates, costs and patient and caregiver satisfaction. Implementation facilitators and barriers were also collected. Discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. Results were synthesised descriptively in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines.

Nine RCTs were identified. The review shows that the HaH model is at least as safe as usual care, with lower or comparable mortality rates. Length of stay varied, with some studies reporting longer stays in the HaH group due to cautious clinical practices. Cost analyses often indicate lower healthcare costs with staffing as the largest expense. Patient and caregiver satisfaction was high, but essential implementation factors were not clearly addressed.

The HaH model represents a promising alternative to acute inpatient care for suitable patients. Future research should focus on conducting larger RCTs, expanding the range of conditions suitable for HaH. Despite favourable clinical outcomes, substantial implementation barriers remain underexplored in current RCTs. This underscores the need to identify strategies for successful implementation, including the integration of technological advancements and qualitative insights into patient and caregiver experiences.