Dataset Information

Incidence of potentially avoidable urgent readmissions and their relation to all-cause urgent readmissions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Urgent, unplanned hospital readmissions are increasingly being used to gauge the quality of care. We reviewed urgent readmissions to determine which were potentially avoidable and compared rates of all-cause and avoidable readmissions.

Methods

In a multicentre, prospective cohort study, we reviewed all urgent readmissions that occurred within six months among patients discharged to the community from 11 teaching and community hospitals between October 2002 and July 2006. Summaries of the readmissions were reviewed by at least four practising physicians using standardized methods to judge whether the readmission was an adverse event (poor clinical outcome due to medical care) and whether the adverse event could have been avoided. We used a latent class model to determine whether the probability that each readmission was truly avoidable exceeded 50%.

Results

Of the 4812 patients included in the study, 649 (13.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.5%-14.5%) had an urgent readmission within six months after discharge. We considered 104 of them (16.0% of those readmitted, 95% CI 13.3%-19.1%; 2.2% of those discharged, 95% CI 1.8%-2.6%) to have had a potentially avoidable readmission. The proportion of patients who had an urgent readmission varied significantly by hospital (range 7.5%-22.5%; χ(2) = 92.9, p < 0.001); the proportion of readmissions deemed avoidable did not show significant variation by hospital (range 1.2%-3.7%; χ(2) = 12.5, p < 0.25). We found no association between the proportion of patients who had an urgent readmission and the proportion of patients who had an avoidable readmission (Pearson correlation 0.294; p = 0.38). In addition, we found no association between hospital rankings by proportion of patients readmitted and rankings by proportion of patients with an avoidable readmission (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.28, p = 0.41).

Interpretation

Urgent readmissions deemed potentially avoidable were relatively uncommon, comprising less than 20% of all urgent readmissions following hospital discharge. Hospital-specific proportions of patients who were readmitted were not related to proportions with a potentially avoidable readmission.

SUBMITTER: van Walraven C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3185098 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Identification of patients at a high risk of potentially avoidable readmission allows hospitals to efficiently direct additional care transitions services to the patients most likely to benefit.To externally validate the HOSPITAL score in an international multicenter study to assess its generalizability.International retrospective cohort study of 117?065 adult patients consecutively discharged alive from the medical department of 9 large hospitals across 4 different countries between January 2011 and December 2011. Patients transferred to another acute care facility were excluded.The HOSPITAL score includes the following predictors at discharge: hemoglobin, discharge from an oncology service, sodium level, procedure during the index admission, index type of admission (urgent), number of admissions during the last 12 months, and length of stay.30-day potentially avoidable readmission to the index hospital using the SQLape algorithm.Overall, 117?065 adults consecutively discharged alive from a medical department between January 2011 and December 2011 were studied. Of all medical discharges, 16?992 of 117?065 (14.5%) were followed by a 30-day readmission, and 11?307 (9.7%) were followed by a 30-day potentially avoidable readmission. The discriminatory power of the HOSPITAL score to predict potentially avoidable readmission was good, with a C statistic of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.72-0.72). As in the derivation study, patients were classified into 3 risk categories: low (n?=?73?031 [62.4%]), intermediate (n?=?27?612 [23.6%]), and high risk (n?=?16?422 [14.0%]). The estimated proportions of potentially avoidable readmission for each risk category matched the observed proportion, resulting in an excellent calibration (Pearson ?2 test P?=?.89).The HOSPITAL score identified patients at high risk of 30-day potentially avoidable readmission with moderately high discrimination and excellent calibration when applied to a large international multicenter cohort of medical patients. This score has the potential to easily identify patients in need of more intensive transitional care interventions to prevent avoidable hospital readmissions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Identifying patients at high risk of hospital preventable readmission is an essential step towards selecting those who might benefit from specific transitional interventions. OBJECTIVE:Derive and validate a predictive risk score for potentially avoidable readmission (PAR) based on analysis of readmissions, with a focus on medication. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS:Retrospective analysis of all hospital admissions to internal medicine wards between 2011 and 2014. Comparison between patients readmitted within 30 days and non-readmitted patients, as identified using a specially designed algorithm. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses of demographic data, clinical diagnoses, laboratory results, and the medication data of patients admitted during the first period (2011-2013), to identify factors associated with PAR. Using these, derive a predictive score with a regression coefficient-based scoring method. Subsequently, validate this score with a second cohort of patients admitted in 2013-2014. Variables were identified at hospital discharge. RESULTS:The derivation cohort included 7,317 hospital stays. Multivariate logistic regressions found significant associations with PAR for: [adjusted OR (95% CI)] hospital length of stay > 4 days [1.3 (1.1-1.7)], admission in previous 6 months [2.3 (1.9-2.8)], heart failure [1.3 (1.0-1.7)], chronic ischemic heart disease [1.7 (1.2-2.3)], diabetes with organ damage [2.2 (1.3-3.8)], cancer [1.4 (1.0-1.9)], metastatic carcinoma [1.9 (1.3-3.0)], anemia [1.2 (1.0-1.5)], hypertension [1.3 (1.1-1.7)], arrhythmia [1.3 (1.0-1.6)], hyperkalemia [1.4 (1.0-1.7)], opioid drug prescription [1.3 (1.1-1.6)], and acute myocardial infarction [0.6 (0.4-0.9)]. The PAR-Risk Score, derived from these results, demonstrated fair discriminatory and calibration power (C-statistic = 0.699; Brier Score = 0.069). The results for the validation cohort's operating characteristics were similar (C-statistic = 0.687; Brier Score = 0.064). CONCLUSION:This study identified routinely-available factors that were significantly associated with PAR. A predictive score was derived and internally validated.

Project description:ImportanceHigh health care costs encourage initiatives that avoid overuse of resources and identify opportunities to promote appropriate care.ObjectiveTo investigate the causes of potentially avoidable surgical intensive care unit (SICU) admissions and disposition delays to determine whether targeted interventions could decrease these stays.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective, observational study focused on potentially avoidable SICU days, as determined by observers with input from the rounding intensivists at a 24-bed open SICU at an urban, academic hospital. The preintervention phase occurred from April 6 through June 21, 2015; after implementation of targeted interventions, the postintervention phase occurred from April 4 through June 28, 2016. Data collected included demographic characteristics, reason for admission, and length of stay. All patients admitted to the SICU during the preintervention and postintervention phases were included in the analysis.InterventionsBased on results collected in the preintervention phase, targeted interventions were designed and implemented from July 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016, including (1) reducing SICU care for minor traumatic brain injury, (2) optimizing postoperative airway management, (3) enhancing communication between services regarding transfers to the SICU, (4) identifying and facilitating more timely end-of-life conversations and supportive care consultations, and (5) encouraging early disposition of patients to floor beds.Main outcomes and measuresChanges in the proportion of potentially avoidable SICU days owing to potentially avoidable admissions and/or disposition delays.ResultsA total of 459 patients (253 men [55.1%] and 206 women [44.9%]; median age, 62 years [interquartile range, 46-75 years]) were admitted during the preintervention and postintervention phases. Of 261 patients admitted during the preintervention period and 245 during the postintervention period, median SICU and hospital length of stay remained unchanged. A reduction was noted in the percentage of postintervention SICU days owing to potentially avoidable admissions (152 of 1168 days [13%] vs 118 of 1338 days [8.8%]; P?=?.001) and disposition delays (138 of 1168 days [11.8%] vs 97 of 1338 days [7.2%]; P?<?.001). During the postintervention period, decreases were noted in the SICU days related to the most common sources of potentially avoidable admissions (SICU stay ?24 hours, airway concerns, and somnolence) and disposition delays (end-of-life decisions and floor bed unavailable) as well as in the overall rate of potentially avoidable days (269 of 1168 days [23%] vs 205 of 1338 days [15.3%]; P?<?.001).Conclusions and relevanceNearly one-fourth of SICU days could be categorized as potentially avoidable. Targeted interventions resulted in a significant reduction of potentially avoidable SICU days.