Dataset Information

Preventability of early vs. late readmissions in an academic medical center.

ABSTRACT:

Background

It is unclear if the 30-day unplanned hospital readmission rate is a plausible accountability metric.

Objective

Compare preventability of hospital readmissions, between an early period [0-7 days post-discharge] and a late period [8-30 days post-discharge]. Compare causes of readmission, and frequency of markers of clinical instability 24h prior to discharge between early and late readmissions.

Design, setting, patients

120 patient readmissions in an academic medical center between 1/1/2009-12/31/2010.

Measures

Sum-score based on a standard algorithm that assesses preventability of each readmission based on blinded hospitalist review; average causation score for seven types of adverse events; rates of markers of clinical instability within 24h prior to discharge.

Results

Readmissions were significantly more preventable in the early compared to the late period [median preventability sum score 8.5 vs. 8.0, p = 0.03]. There were significantly more management errors as causative events for the readmission in the early compared to the late period [mean causation score [scale 1-6, 6 most causal] 2.0 vs. 1.5, p = 0.04], and these errors were significantly more preventable in the early compared to the late period [mean preventability score 1.9 vs 1.5, p = 0.03]. Patients readmitted in the early period were significantly more likely to have mental status changes documented 24h prior to hospital discharge than patients readmitted in the late period [12% vs. 0%, p = 0.01].

Conclusions

Readmissions occurring in the early period were significantly more preventable. Early readmissions were associated with more management errors, and mental status changes 24h prior to discharge. Seven-day readmissions may be a better accountability measure.

SUBMITTER: Graham KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5473551 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Preventability of early vs. late readmissions in an academic medical center.

Graham Kelly L KL Dike Ogechi O Doctoroff Lauren L Jupiter Marisa M Vanka Anita A Davis Roger B RB Marcantonio Edward R ER

PloS one 20170616 6

<h4>Background</h4>It is unclear if the 30-day unplanned hospital readmission rate is a plausible accountability metric.<h4>Objective</h4>Compare preventability of hospital readmissions, between an early period [0-7 days post-discharge] and a late period [8-30 days post-discharge]. Compare causes of readmission, and frequency of markers of clinical instability 24h prior to discharge between early and late readmissions.<h4>Design, setting, patients</h4>120 patient readmissions in an academic medi ...[more]

PMID: 28622384

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveIn the United States, national efforts to reduce hospital readmissions have been enacted, including the application of substantial insurance reimbursement penalties for hospitals with elevated rates. Readmissions after severe sepsis remain understudied and could possibly signify lapses in care and missed opportunities for intervention. We sought to characterize 7- and 30-day readmission rates following hospital admission for severe sepsis as well as institutional variations in readmission.DesignRetrospective analysis of 345,657 severe sepsis discharges from University HealthSystem Consortium hospitals in 2012.SettingUnited States.PatientsWe applied the commonly cited method described by Angus et al for identification of severe sepsis, including only discharges with sepsis present at admission.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsWe identified unplanned, all-cause readmissions within 7 and 30 days of discharge using claims-based algorithms. Using mixed-effects logistic regression, we determined factors associated with 30-day readmission. We used risk-standardized readmission rates to assess institutional variations. Among 216,328 eligible severe sepsis discharges, there were 14,932 readmissions within 7 days (6.9%; 95% CI, 6.8-7.0) and 43,092 within 30 days (19.9%; 95% CI, 19.8-20.1). Among those readmitted within 30 days, 66.9% had an infection and 40.3% had severe sepsis at readmission. Patient severity, length of stay, and specific diagnoses were associated with increased odds of 30-day readmission. Observed institutional 7-day readmission rates ranged from 0% to 12.3%, 30-day rates from 3.6% to 29.1%, and 30-day risk-standardized readmission rates from 14.1% to 31.1%. Greater institutional volume, teaching status, trauma services, location in the Northeast, and lower ICU rates were associated with poor risk-standardized readmission rate performance.ConclusionsSevere sepsis readmission places a substantial burden on the healthcare system, with one in 15 and one in five severe sepsis discharges readmitted within 7 and 30 days, respectively. Hospitals and clinicians should be aware of this important sequela of severe sepsis.

Project description:Orthopaedic care is shifting to alternative payment models. We examined whether New York University Langone Medical Center achieved savings under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative.This study was a difference-in-differences study of Medicare fee-for-service patients hospitalized from April 2011 to June 2012 and October 2013 to December 2014 for lower extremity joint arthroplasty, cardiac valve procedures, or spine surgery (intervention groups), or for congestive heart failure, major bowel procedures, medical peripheral vascular disorders, medical noninfectious orthopaedic care, or stroke (control group). We examined total episode costs and costs by service category.We included 2,940 intervention episodes and 1,474 control episodes. Relative to the trend in the control group, lower extremity joint arthroplasty episodes achieved the greatest savings: adjusted average episode cost during the intervention period decreased by $3,017 (95% confidence interval [CI], -$6,066 to $31). For cardiac procedures, the adjusted average episode cost decreased by $2,999 (95% CI, -$8,103 to $2,105), and for spinal fusion, it increased by $8,291 (95% CI, $2,879 to $13,703). Savings were driven predominantly by shifting postdischarge care from inpatient rehabilitation facilities to home. Spinal fusion index admission costs increased because of changes in surgical technique.Under bundled payment, New York University Langone Medical Center decreased total episode costs in patients undergoing lower extremity joint arthroplasty. For patients undergoing cardiac valve procedures, evidence of savings was not as strong, and for patients undergoing spinal fusion, total episode costs increased. For all three conditions, the proportion of patients referred to inpatient rehabilitation facilities upon discharge decreased. These changes were not associated with an increase in index hospital length of stay or readmission rate.Opportunities for savings under bundled payment may be greater for lower extremity joint arthroplasty than for other conditions.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify the preventability, determinants and causes of unplanned hospital readmissions within 30 days of discharge using a multidisciplinary approach and including patients' perspectives.DesignA prospective cross-sectional single-center study.SettingUrban teaching hospital in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Participants430 patients were included. Inclusion criteria were: age ? 18 years, discharged from one of seven participating clinical departments and an unplanned readmission within 30 days.MethodsResidents from the participating departments individually assessed whether the readmission was caused by healthcare, the preventability and possible causes of readmissions using a tool. Thereafter, the preventability of the cases was discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting with residents of all participating departments and clinical pharmacists. The primary outcome was the proportion of readmissions that were potentially preventable. Secondary outcomes were the determinants for a readmission, causes for preventable readmissions, the change in the final decision on preventability after the multidisciplinary meeting and the value of patient interviews in assessing preventability. Differences in characteristics of potentially preventable readmissions (PPRs) and non-PPRs were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsOf 430 readmissions, 56 (13%) were assessed as PPRs. Age was significantly associated with a PPR (adjusted OR: 2.42; 95%, CI 1.23-4.74; p = 0.01). The main causes for PPRs were diagnostic (30%), medication (27%) and management problems (27%). During the multidisciplinary meeting, the final decision on preventability changed in 11% of the cases. When a patient interview was available, it was used as a source of information to assess preventability in 26% of readmissions. In 7% of cases, the patient interview was mentioned as the most important source.Conclusion and implications13% of readmissions were potentially preventable with diagnostic, medication or management problems being main causes. A multidisciplinary review approach and including the patient's perspective could contribute to a better understanding of the complexity of readmissions and possible improvements.

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

Preventability of early vs. late readmissions in an academic medical center.

Background

Objective

Design, setting, patients

Measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Preventability of early vs. late readmissions in an academic medical center.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets