Dataset Information

The characteristics of patients frequently admitted to academic medical centers in the United States.

ABSTRACT: The recent intense attention to hospital readmissions and their implications for quality, safety, and reimbursement necessitates understanding specific subsets of readmitted patients. Frequently admitted patients, defined as patients who are admitted 5 or more times within 1 year, may have some distinguishing characteristics that require novel solutions.A comprehensive administrative database (University HealthSystem Consortium's Clinical Data Base/Resource Manager) was analyzed to identify demographic, social, and clinical characteristics of frequently admitted patients in 101 US academic medical centers.We studied 28,291 frequently admitted patients with 180,185 admissions over a 1-year period (2011-2012). These patients comprise 1.6% of all patients, but account for 8% of all admissions and 7% of direct costs. Their admissions are driven by multiple chronic conditions; compared to other hospitalized patients, they have significantly more comorbidities (an average of 7.1 vs 2.5), and 84% of their admissions are to medical services. A minority, but significantly more than other patients, have comorbidities of psychosis or substance abuse. Moreover, although they are slightly more likely than other patients to be on Medicaid or to be uninsured (27.6% vs 21.6%), nearly three-quarters have private or Medicare coverage.Patients who are frequently admitted to US academic medical centers are likely to have multiple complex chronic conditions and may have behavioral comorbidities that mediate their health behaviors, resulting in acute episodes requiring hospitalization. This information can be used to identify solutions for preventing repeat hospitalization for this small group of patients who consume a highly disproportionate share of healthcare resources.

SUBMITTER: Szekendi MK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5032986 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAmerican College of Surgeons level I trauma center verification requires an active research program. This study investigated differences in the research programs of academic and non-academic trauma centers.MethodsA 28-question survey was administered to ACS-verified level I trauma centers in 11/12/2020-1/7/2021. The survey included questions on center characteristics (patient volume, staff size), peer-reviewed publications, staff and resources dedicated to research, and funding sources.ResultsThe survey had a 31% response rate: 137 invitations were successfully delivered via email, and 42 centers completed at least part of the survey. Responding level I trauma centers included 36 (86%) self-identified academic and 6 (14%) self-identified non-academic centers. Academic and non-academic centers reported similar annual trauma patient volume (2190 vs. 2450), number of beds (545 vs. 440), and years of ACS verification (20 vs. 14), respectively. Academic centers had more full-time trauma surgeons (median 8 vs 6 for non-academic centers) and general surgery residents (median 30 vs 7) than non-academic centers. Non-academic centers more frequently ranked trauma surgery (100% vs. 36% academic), basic science (50% vs. 6% academic), neurosurgery (50% vs. 14% academic), and nursing (33% vs. 0% academic) in the top three types of studies conducted. Academic centers were more likely to report non-profit status (86% academic, 50% non-academic) and utilized research funding from external governmental or non-profit grants more often (76% vs 17%).ConclusionsSurvey results suggest that academic centers may have more physician, resident, and financial resources available to dedicate to trauma research, which may make fulfillment of ACS level I research requirements easier. Structural and institutional changes at non-academic centers, such as expansion of general surgery resident programs and increased pursuit of external grant funding, may help ensure that academic and non-academic sites are equally equipped to fulfill ACS research criteria.

Project description:ImportanceConcerns have been raised about the adequacy of health care access among patients cared for within the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system.ObjectivesTo determine wait times for new patients receiving care at VA medical centers and compare wait times in the VA medical centers with wait times in the private sector (PS).Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective, repeated cross-sectional study was conducted of new appointment wait times for primary care, dermatology, cardiology, or orthopedics at VA medical centers in 15 major metropolitan areas in 2014 and 2017. Comparison data from the PS came from a published survey that used a secret shopper survey approach. Secondary analyses evaluated the change in overall and unique patients seen in the entire VA system and patient satisfaction survey measures of care access between 2014 and 2017.Main outcomes and measuresThe outcome of interest was patient wait time. Wait times in the VA were determined directly from patient scheduling. Wait times in the PS were as reported in Merritt Hawkins surveys using the secret shopper method.ResultsCompared with the PS, overall mean VA wait times for new appointments in 2014 were similar (mean [SD] wait time, 18.7 [7.9] days PS vs 22.5 [7.3] days VA; P = .20). Department of Veterans Affairs wait times in 2014 were similar to those in the PS across specialties and regions. In 2017, overall wait times for new appointments in the VA were shorter than in the PS (mean [SD], 17.7 [5.9] vs 29.8 [16.6] days; P < .001). This was true in primary care (mean [SD], 20.0 [10.4] vs 40.7 [35.0] days; P = .005), dermatology (mean [SD], 15.6 [12.2] vs 32.6 [16.5] days; P < .001), and cardiology (mean [SD], 15.3 [12.6] vs 22.8 [10.1] days; P = .04). Wait times for orthopedics remained longer in the VA than the PS (mean [SD], 20.9 [13.3] vs 12.4 [5.5] days; P = .01), although wait time improved significantly between 2014 and 2017 in the VA for orthopedics while wait times in the PS did not change (change in mean wait times, increased 1.5 days vs decreased 5.4 days; P = .02). Secondary analysis demonstrated an increase in the number of unique patients seen and appointment encounters in the VA between 2014 and 2017 (4 996 564 to 5 118 446, and 16 476 461 to 17 331 538, respectively), and patient satisfaction measures of access also improved (satisfaction scores increased by 1.4%, 3.0%, and 4.0% for specialty care, routine primary care, and urgent primary care, P < .05).Conclusions and relevanceAlthough wait times in the VA and PS appeared to be similar in 2014, there have been interval improvements in VA wait times since then, while wait times in the PS appear to be static. These findings suggest that access to care within the VA has improved over time.

Project description:BackgroundAcademic Medical Centers (AMCs) must simultaneously serve different purposes: Delivery of high quality healthcare services to patients, as the main mission, supported by other core missions such as academic activities, i.e., researching, teaching and tutoring, while maintaining solvency. This study aims to develop a methodology for constructing models evaluating the academic value provided by AMCs and implementing it at the largest AMC in Israel.MethodsThirty five practiced educators and researchers, academic experts, faculty members and executives, all employed by a metropolitan 1500-bed AMC, were involved in developing academic quality indicators. First, an initial list of AMCs' academic quality indicators was drafted, using a literature review and consulting scholars. Afterwards, additional data and preferences were collected by conducting semi-structured interviews, complemented by a three-round Delphi Panel. Finally, the methodology for constructing a model evaluating the academic value provided by the AMC was developed.ResultsThe composite academic quality indicators methodology consists of nine indicators (relative weight in parentheses): 'Scientific Publications Value' (18.7%), 'Completed Studies' (13.5%), 'Authors Value' (13.0%), 'Residents Quality' (11.3%), 'Competitive Grants Budget' (10.2%), 'Academic Training' (8.7%), 'Academic Positions' (8.3%), 'Number of Studies' (8.3%) and 'Academic Supervision' (8.0%). These indicators were grouped into three core categories: 'Education', 'Research' and 'Publications', having almost the same importance on a scale from zero to one (0-1), i.e., 0.363, 0.320, and 0.317, respectively. The results demonstrated a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach-alpha range: 0.79-0.86).ConclusionsWe have found a gap in the ability to measure academic value provided by AMCs. The main contribution of this research is the development of methodology for constructing evaluation models for AMCs academic performance. Further studies are needed to further test the validity and reliability of the proposed methodology at other sites.

Dataset Information

The characteristics of patients frequently admitted to academic medical centers in the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets