Program status: The NHIF Benchmarking Program concluded at the end of 2025. This page is maintained as a historical record of the program’s purpose, metrics, and published findings. Enrollment is closed and NHIF is no longer collecting benchmarking data.
About the program
The National Home Infusion Foundation established the NHIF Benchmarking Program to collect standardized, industry-wide data that could serve as a national reference point for performance and clinical metrics in home and alternate site infusion.
The program rested on three design principles: standardized definitions, voluntary participation, and aggregate-only public reporting. Participating providers received individualized reports comparing their own submitted data against industry aggregates.
The measure definitions developed for the program remain available on the Standard Definitions page.
Program scale
Over seven years, 60 home and specialty infusion providers took part in the Patient Satisfaction program. Participants administered 285,108 surveys nationwide, yielding 47,522 completed responses. Providers submitted de-identified data quarterly, either directly to the NHIF data portal or through a data intermediary that administered surveys on their behalf.
Why the program concluded
NHIF evaluated the program against the evolving needs of the field and concluded that the greatest opportunity had shifted away from maintaining static benchmarks and toward deeper, industry-wide research capable of producing actionable findings on trends and best practices. The Foundation’s research investment is now directed toward that broader work.
Patient Satisfaction
Purpose. To establish the first industry-wide benchmark for home infusion patient experience, and to give providers a comparative reference for their own satisfaction scores.
What we measured. Patient-reported experience across seven domains: equipment and supplies, general communication, staff courtesy, staff helpfulness, patient understanding of instructions, overall satisfaction, and willingness to recommend the provider. The program aimed to provide a credible, field-specific measure for home infusion.
The Survey. Data was collected using the Uniform Patient Satisfaction Survey for Home Infusion Providers, developed by NHIF in 2017. Survey questions and response options were established through Delphi methodology with a 15-member panel of home infusion experts across three rounds of rating and revision, then pilot tested with patient phone interviews to confirm clarity and internal validity. The final survey comprises 12 questions and 22 data points. Because the survey is validated, it is suitable for use in formal research.
How results were scored. Benchmarks were reported as top-box scores (the percentage of respondents selecting the highest available response option, such as “Strongly Agree”). For Likert-scaled questions, we also calculated the mean and standard deviation, since the mean reflects every respondent’s rating rather than only those choosing the top option.
Outcomes. Year-over-year results showed minimal fluctuation across the program’s seven years. The full dataset was aggregated to establish definitive patient satisfaction standards for the home and specialty infusion industry. Providers can use these standards to evaluate their own quarterly and annual performance.
Composite standards, 2019–2025 (n = 47,522 completed surveys)2:
| Composite category | Survey question(s) | Top box standard |
|---|---|---|
| 1.Equipment and supplies | 1–3 | 94.89% |
| 2.General communication | 4–7 | 88.59% |
| 3.Staff courtesy | 8a–d | 92.54% |
| 4.Staff helpfulness | 9a–d | 91.28% |
| 5.Patient instruction | 10a–e | 98.32% |
| 6.Overall satisfaction | 11 | 81.93% |
| 7.Would recommend | 12 | 80.14% |
Notable findings across the seven-year dataset2:
| Survey Question # | Survey Question & Top Box Percent Standard | 2019 - 2025 (n=47,522) % | Mean Score/SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The home infusion pump was clean when it was delivered. | 98.81 | NA |
| 2 | The home infusion pump worked properly. | 97.09 | NA |
| 3 | The home infusion medications and supplies arrived before I needed them. | 88.76 | 4.83 (.579) |
| 4 | I knew who to call if I needed help with my home infusion therapy. | 97.73 | NA |
| 5 | The response I received to phone calls for help on weekends or during evening hours met my needs. | 83.82 | 4.74 (.703) |
| 6 | The home infusion nurse or pharmacist informed me of the possible side effects of the home infusion medication. | 84.03 | NA |
| 7 | I understood the explanation of my financial responsibilities for home infusion therapy. | 88.78 | NA |
| 8a | The delivery staff was always courteous. | 94.19 | 4.92 (.368) |
| 8b | The billing staff was always courteous. | 88.53 | 4.81 (.623) |
| 8c | The pharmacy staff was always courteous. | 93.03 | 4.90 (.414) |
| 8d | The nursing staff was always courteous. | 94.42 | 4.92 (.368) |
| 9a | The delivery staff was always helpful. | 92.08 | 4.89 (.438) |
| 9b | The billing staff was always helpful. | 87.10 | 4.78 (.676) |
| 9c | The pharmacy staff was always helpful. | 92.23 | 4.89 (.452) |
| 9d | The nursing staff was always helpful. | 93.71 | 4.91 (.405) |
| 10a | I understood the instructions provided for how to wash my hands. | 98.76 | NA |
| 10b | I understood the instructions provided for how to give home infusion medication(s). | 98.86 | NA |
| 10c | I understood the instructions provided for how to care for the IV catheter. | 98.10 | NA |
| 10d | I understood the instructions provided for how to store the home infusion medication(s). | 98.11 | NA |
| 10e | I understood the instructions provided for how to use the home infusion pump. | 97.77 | NA |
| 11 | I was satisfied with the overall quality of the services provided. | 81.93 | 4.78 (.554) |
| 12 | I would recommend this home infusion company to my family and friends. | 80.14 | 4.74 (.607) |
Status at Discharge
Purpose. Introduced in 2020 as the program’s first clinical outcome metric, to evaluate the safety of home infusion services and understand why patients discontinue therapy.
What we measured. Reasons patients were discharged from home and suite-based infusion therapy, reported against nine standardized discharge categories: therapy completed, patient expired, unplanned hospitalization, change in home infusion eligibility, insufficient response or complication, adverse drug reaction, access device related, change of infusion provider, and other. The metric also captured descriptive data on patient demographics, therapy types, and access devices. Three measures were identified as most relevant to providers: the percentage of patients completing therapy, the percentage discharged due to an adverse drug reaction, and the percentage discharged due to an unplanned hospitalization.
Outcomes. Across 16 quarters of collection from 2021 through 2024, representing 36,072 patient cases, the data showed a declining rate of unplanned hospitalizations and adverse drug reactions and a rising anti-infective therapy completion rate. Mean quarterly rates over that period were 3.19% for unplanned hospitalization (SD 1.019), 0.30% for adverse drug reaction (SD 0.131), and 92.19% for anti-infective therapy completion (SD 1.964).a
Annual benchmarks9,11:
| Year | Cases | ADR | Unplanned hosp. | Therapy completed (anti-infective) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 6,126 | 0.33% | 3.94% | 91.23% |
| 2022 | 6,842 | 0.22% | 2.84% | 92.89% |
| 2023 | 16,472 | 0.33% | 3.77% | 91.42% |
| 2024 | 6,632 | 0.30% | 2.55% | 93.07% |
Therapy completion is reported for anti-infective patients, who accounted for 72.26% of all cases (n = 26,066) across the four-year period.
Therapy completion was also benchmarked for anti-neoplastic chemotherapy and other non-biologic therapies, though the far smaller samples in those categories produced wider year-to-year variation than the anti-infective figures.
Descriptive findings characterized the home infusion population as older, with a 2024 mean age of 60.4 years and 45.91% of patients aged 65 or over. Care was delivered almost entirely in the home rather than an infusion suite (97.96% of 2024 cases), and PICC lines were the most common access device at 60.77%.
The last full-year benchmarks were established for 2024.
30-Day Hospital Readmission (HRA)
Purpose. Launched as a six-month pilot in 2020 to measure re-hospitalization in the highest-acuity transitions from hospital to home infusion.
What we measured. Frequency, timing, and documented reason for unplanned re-hospitalization within the first 30 days of home infusion therapy in two populations: patients receiving inotropic medications, and home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Readmissions were classified as related or unrelated to the home infusion therapy, and the reason and outcome were recorded for related events. Patients in hospice care were excluded.
Outcomes. Annual benchmarks were established for each therapy from 2021 through 2024. All-cause figures include hospitalizations for any reason; infusion-related figures count only those attributable to the infused medication, access device, administration method, or the condition being treated.
Inotropic therapya,14
| Year | Cases | All-cause | Infusion-related |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 166 | 34.94% | 21.08% |
| 2022 | 156 | 31.41% | 12.18% |
| 2023 | 206 | 25.73% | 11.65% |
| 2024 | 194 | 46.91% | 14.43% |
Home parenteral nutritiona,14
| Year | Cases | All-cause | Infusion-related |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 830 | 34.70% | 10.24% |
| 2022 | 807 | 39.16% | 9.79% |
| 2023 | 668 | 35.63% | 10.18% |
| 2024 | 491 | 43.99% | 8.15% |
The infusion-related rate, which is the measure most directly attributable to home infusion care, declined over the four years in both populations: from 21.08% to 14.43% in inotropic patients and from 10.24% to 8.15% in parenteral nutrition patients. All-cause rates rose in 2024 in both groups, driven by hospitalizations unrelated to the infusion therapy. Annual rates in smaller therapy populations are sensitive to quarterly sample size.a
Among 2024 readmissions related to the infusion therapy, access device infection was the leading reason in parenteral nutrition patients (47.50%) and insufficient response was the leading reason in inotropic patients (35.71%). Where a readmission outcome was recorded, most patients resumed without changes in treatment: 77.19% of parenteral nutrition patients and 52.46% of inotropic patients.a
These populations were also the subject of peer-reviewed research. A multicenter descriptive study of 1,692 home parenteral nutrition patients from 21 provider locations, covering January 2021 through June 2023, found a 30-day readmission rate of 36.8%. Among readmissions with timing data, 66.7% occurred within the first 14 days at home, with a median of 10 days to readmission. Access device infection was the most common documented reason at 56.8%, followed by insufficient response at 28.4%. The study concluded that the concentration of readmissions in the first two weeks underscores the importance of discharge readiness and early follow-up by the home infusion team.1
a National Home Infusion Foundation Benchmarking Program. Internal data on file.
Published findings
Findings from the program were published in the peer-reviewed literature and in NHIA and NHIF publications between 2017 and 2026.
Peer-reviewed
Patient Satisfaction
Status at Discharge
30-Day Hospital Readmission
For questions about the program or this page, contact: nhifdata@nhia.org
Acknowledgments
NHIF thanks the home infusion providers who contributed data to this program, whose support made it possible.
