Dataset Information

Hospital Use of Observation Stays: Cross-sectional Study of the Impact on Readmission Rates.

ABSTRACT: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services publicly reports hospital risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) as a measure of quality and performance; mischaracterizations may occur because observation stays are not captured by current measures.To describe variation in hospital use of observation stays, the relationship between hospitals observation stay use and RSRRs.Cross-sectional analysis of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure, or pneumonia between July 2011 and June 2012. We calculated 3 hospital-specific 30-day outcomes: (1) observation rate, the proportion of all discharges followed by an observation stay without a readmission; (2) observation proportion, the proportion of observation stays among all patients with an observation stay or readmission; and (3) RSRR.For all 3 conditions, hospitals' observation rates were <2.5% and observation proportions were <12%, although there was variation across hospitals, including 28% of hospital with no observation stay use for AMI, 31% for heart failure, and 43% for pneumonia. There were statistically significant, but minimal, correlations between hospital observation rates and RSRRs: AMI (r=-0.02), heart failure (r=-0.11), and pneumonia (r=-0.02) (P<0.001). There were modest inverse correlations between hospital observation proportion and RSRR: AMI (r=-0.34), heart failure (r=-0.26), and pneumonia (r=-0.21) (P<0.001). If observation stays were included in readmission measures, <4% of top performing hospitals would be recategorized as having average performance.Hospitals' observation stay use in the postdischarge period is low, but varies widely. Despite modest correlation between the observation proportion and RSRR, counting observation stays in readmission measures would minimally impact public reporting of performance.

SUBMITTER: Venkatesh AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5850934 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Hospital Use of Observation Stays: Cross-sectional Study of the Impact on Readmission Rates.

Venkatesh Arjun K AK Wang Changqin C Ross Joseph S JS Altaf Faseeha K FK Suter Lisa G LG Vellanky Smitha S Grady Jacqueline N JN Bernheim Susannah M SM

Medical care 20161201 12

<h4>Background</h4>The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services publicly reports hospital risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) as a measure of quality and performance; mischaracterizations may occur because observation stays are not captured by current measures.<h4>Objectives</h4>To describe variation in hospital use of observation stays, the relationship between hospitals observation stay use and RSRRs.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Cross-sectional analysis of Medicare fee-for-service b ...[more]

PMID: 27579906

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the association of hospital volume (a marker of quality of care) with hospital readmission rates.DesignRetrospective cross-sectional study.Setting4651 US acute care hospitals.Study data6,916,644 adult discharges, excluding patients receiving psychiatric or medical cancer treatment.Main outcome measuresWe used Medicare fee-for-service data from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 to calculate observed-to-expected, unplanned, 30 day, standardized readmission rates for hospitals and for specialty cohorts medicine, surgery/gynecology, cardiorespiratory, cardiovascular, and neurology. We assessed the association of hospital volume by quintiles with 30 day, standardized readmission rates, with and without adjustment for hospital characteristics (safety net status, teaching status, geographic region, urban/rural status, nurse to bed ratio, ownership, and cardiac procedure capability. We also examined associations with the composite outcome of 30 day, standardized readmission or mortality rates.ResultsMean 30 day, standardized readmission rate among the fifth of hospitals with the lowest volume was 14.7 (standard deviation 5.3) compared with 15.9 (1.7) among the fifth of hospitals with the highest volume (P<0.001). We observed the same pattern of lower readmission rates in the lowest versus highest volume hospitals in the specialty cohorts for medicine (16.6 v 17.4, P<0.001), cardiorespiratory (18.5 v 20.5, P<0.001), and neurology (13.2 v 14.0, p=0.01) cohorts; the cardiovascular cohort, however, had an inverse association (14.6 v 13.7, P<0.001). These associations remained after adjustment for hospital characteristics except in the cardiovascular cohort, which became non-significant, and the surgery/gynecology cohort, in which the lowest volume fifth of hospitals had significantly higher standardized readmission rates than the highest volume fifth (difference 0.63 percentage points (95% confidence interval 0.10 to 1.17), P=0.02). Mean 30 day, standardized mortality or readmission rate was not significantly different between highest and lowest volume fifths (20.4 v 20.2, P=0.19) and was highest in the middle fifth of hospitals (range 20.6-20.8).ConclusionsStandardized readmission rates are lowest in the lowest volume hospitals-opposite from the typical association of greater hospital volume with better outcomes. This association was independent of hospital characteristics and was only partially attenuated by examining mortality and readmission together. Our findings suggest that readmissions are associated with different aspects of care than mortality or complications.

Project description:Background/objectivesObservation stays are increasingly common for older adults, yet little is known about the extent to which they are being used as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) originally intended for unscheduled or acute problems and whether different types of services are reflected in current billing practices.DesignObservational cohort study.Setting/participantsA total of 867,165 qualifying observation stays identified from 451,408 patients using Medicare fee-for-service claims data from a nationally representative 20% beneficiary sample between January 1, 2014, and November 30, 2014.MeasurementsUsing descriptive and multivariable logistic model analytic approaches, we evaluated the patient, stay, and hospital characteristics associated with the most common billing practice for observation stays (charge revenue center 0761 exclusively) vs all other practices.ResultsSixty-three percent of observation stays were billed exclusively under the 0761 revenue center and were more likely to be for preplanned chronic conditions consisting of short-term treatments (eg, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, wound care, paracentesis, epidural spinal injection). These stays appeared to be used for recurrent single-day visits, given their strong association with prior visits and a high rate of reobservation (41.4%), with frequent return stays appearing in a 7-day pattern.ConclusionNearly two-thirds of observation stays are billed using only the 0761 revenue code and appear to be for prescheduled, repeated treatments-differing substantially from CMS' explicitly stated purpose as a form of care used while a healthcare provider determines whether a patient presenting for unscheduled or acute conditions requires inpatient hospital admission or can be safely discharged. Guidance is needed from CMS to clarify the appropriate role of observation stays, with discussion as to whether episodic single-day, planned treatment for chronic conditions not originating in the emergency department should be billed as observation stays or placed under another mechanism. Subsequent research is needed to understand how the current use of observation stays impact patient out-of-pocket costs. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1568-1572, 2020.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Short hospital stays may represent opportunities to avert unnecessary admissions or expedite inpatient care. To inform the design of interventions that target patients with potentially avoidable hospital admissions or brief stays, we examined the patient, physician and situational characteristics associated with short stays among patients admitted to general internal medicine wards and describe the use of hospital resources by these patients. METHODS:This was a multicentre cross-sectional study conducted between Apr. 1, 2012, and Mar. 31, 2015, at 5 teaching hospitals in Toronto. We included all general internal medicine admissions through the emergency department. We examined patient, physician and situational predictors of a short hospital stay, which was defined as the patient's being discharged home alive in 2 possible time windows: less than 24 hours, or 72 hours or less. RESULTS:The final study sample included 56 055 admissions and 37 700 unique patients. Patients discharged in less than 24 hours and in 72 hours or less accounted for 4245 (7.6%) and 13 442 (31.6%) admissions, respectively. After we controlled for patient factors, patients of female physicians were less likely than those of male physicians to have stays lasting less than 24 hours (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.86) or 72 hours or less (adjusted OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.79-0.86). Patients admitted at night or on a weekday were significantly more likely than those admitted at other times to have stays lasting less than 24 hours (night: adjusted OR 2.73, 95% CI 2.44-3.06; weekday: adjusted OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.17-1.36) or 72 hours or less (night: adjusted OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.22-1.37, weekday: adjusted OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.10). Among stays lasting less than 24 hours and 24-72 hours, intravenously administered medications were ordered for 2788 (65.7%) and 10 722 (79.8%) patients, respectively, and computed tomography scans were performed for 1561 (36.8%) and 5354 (39.1%) patients, respectively. INTERPRETATION:Short general internal medicine hospital stays were common and were associated with patient, physician and situational factors. Interventions to avert hospital admission or reduce length of stay may be more effective if they are accessible outside typical working hours and provide access to intravenous therapy and radiological investigations.

Project description:ImportanceThe Affordable Care Act has led to US national reductions in hospital 30-day readmission rates for heart failure (HF), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and pneumonia. Whether readmission reductions have had the unintended consequence of increasing mortality after hospitalization is unknown.ObjectiveTo examine the correlation of paired trends in hospital 30-day readmission rates and hospital 30-day mortality rates after discharge.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older hospitalized with HF, AMI, or pneumonia from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2014.ExposureThirty-day risk-adjusted readmission rate (RARR).Main outcomes and measuresThirty-day RARRs and 30-day risk-adjusted mortality rates (RAMRs) after discharge were calculated for each condition in each month at each hospital in 2008 through 2014. Monthly trends in each hospital's 30-day RARRs and 30-day RAMRs after discharge were examined for each condition. The weighted Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated for hospitals' paired monthly trends in 30-day RARRs and 30-day RAMRs after discharge for each condition.ResultsIn 2008 through 2014, 2 962 554 hospitalizations for HF, 1 229 939 for AMI, and 2 544 530 for pneumonia were identified at 5016, 4772, and 5057 hospitals, respectively. In January 2008, mean hospital 30-day RARRs and 30-day RAMRs after discharge were 24.6% and 8.4% for HF, 19.3% and 7.6% for AMI, and 18.3% and 8.5% for pneumonia. Hospital 30-day RARRs declined in the aggregate across hospitals from 2008 through 2014; monthly changes in RARRs were -0.053% (95% CI, -0.055% to -0.051%) for HF, -0.044% (95% CI, -0.047% to -0.041%) for AMI, and -0.033% (95% CI, -0.035% to -0.031%) for pneumonia. In contrast, monthly aggregate changes across hospitals in hospital 30-day RAMRs after discharge varied by condition: HF, 0.008% (95% CI, 0.007% to 0.010%); AMI, -0.003% (95% CI, -0.005% to -0.001%); and pneumonia, 0.001% (95% CI, -0.001% to 0.003%). However, correlation coefficients in hospitals' paired monthly changes in 30-day RARRs and 30-day RAMRs after discharge were weakly positive: HF, 0.066 (95% CI, 0.036 to 0.096); AMI, 0.067 (95% CI, 0.027 to 0.106); and pneumonia, 0.108 (95% CI, 0.079 to 0.137). Findings were similar in secondary analyses, including with alternate definitions of hospital mortality.Conclusions and relevanceAmong Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or pneumonia, reductions in hospital 30-day readmission rates were weakly but significantly correlated with reductions in hospital 30-day mortality rates after discharge. These findings do not support increasing postdischarge mortality related to reducing hospital readmissions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Whether types of hospitals with high readmission rates also have high overall postdischarge acute care utilization (including emergency department and observation care) is unknown. DESIGN:Cross-sectional analysis. SUBJECTS:Nonfederal United States acute care hospitals. MEASURES:Using methodology established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, we calculated each hospital's "excess days in acute care" for fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries aged over 65 years discharged after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure (HF), or pneumonia, representing the mean difference between predicted and expected total days of acute care utilization in the 30 days following hospital discharge, per 100 discharges. We assessed the multivariable association of 8 hospital characteristics with excess days in acute care and the proportion of hospitals with each characteristic that were statistical outliers (95% credible interval estimate does not include 0). RESULTS:We included 2184 hospitals for acute myocardial infarction [228 (10.4%) better than expected, 549 (25.1%) worse than expected], 3720 hospitals for HF [484 (13.0%) better and 840 (22.6%) worse], and 4195 hospitals for pneumonia [673 (16.0%) better, 1005 (24.0%) worse]. Results for all conditions were similar. Worse than expected outliers for pneumonia included: 18.8% of safety net hospitals versus 26.1% of nonsafety net hospitals; 16.7% of public hospitals versus 33.1% of for-profit hospitals; 19.5% of nonteaching hospitals versus 52.2% of major teaching hospitals; 7.9% of rural hospitals versus 42.1% of large urban hospitals; 5.9% of hospitals with 24-<50 beds versus 58% of hospitals with >500 beds; and 29.0% of hospitals with nurse-to-bed ratios >1.0-1.5 versus 21.7% of hospitals with ratios >2.0. CONCLUSIONS:Including emergency department and observation stays in measures of postdischarge utilization produces similar results as measuring only readmissions in that major teaching, urban and for-profit hospitals still perform disproportionately poorly versus nonteaching or public hospitals. However, it enables identification of more outliers and a more granular assessment of the association of hospital factors and outcomes.

Project description:Several care transition interventions propose that post-discharge phone calls can reduce adverse events and decrease costly return visits to the hospital. However, given the multi-faceted nature of most care transitions interventions, the true relationship between post-discharge phone calls and readmissions in a real world setting is uncertain.To determine the effect of receiving a post-discharge telephone call on all-cause 30-day readmission in a general medicine population.Retrospective observational study.Patients discharged home from the Medicine Service at a tertiary care academic medical center between November 2010 and May 2012.Patients received two telephone call attempts by a nurse within 72 h of discharge. Nurses followed a standard script to address issues associated with readmission.Billing data captured readmissions. We used logistic regression-adjusted patient and clinical covariates as well as a propensity score representing likelihood of being called to determine the association between call receipt and risk for readmission.There were 5,507 eligible patients. In unadjusted analyses, patients who received a call and completed the intervention were significantly less likely to be readmitted compared to those who did not [155 (5.8 %) vs 123 (8.6 %), p?<?0.01]. In multivariable models adjusting for socio-demographic and clinical covariates alone, completing a post-discharge telephone call intervention was associated with lower odds for readmission (AOR 0.71; 95 % CI: 0.55-0.91). However, when models adjusted for the likelihood of receiving the phone call using the propensity score, no association between call receipt and readmission was observed (AOR 0.91; 95%CI: 0.69-1.20).Effectiveness of post-discharge phone call programs may be more related to whether patients are able to answer a phone call than to the care delivered by the phone call. Programs would benefit from improving their ability to perform phone outreach while simultaneously improving on the care delivered during the calls.

Dataset Information

Hospital Use of Observation Stays: Cross-sectional Study of the Impact on Readmission Rates.

Publications

Hospital Use of Observation Stays: Cross-sectional Study of the Impact on Readmission Rates.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure