Dataset Information

The association between outpatient follow-up visits and all-cause non-elective 30-day readmissions: A retrospective observational cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

As an effort to reduce hospital readmissions, early follow-up visits were recommended by the Society of Hospital Medicine. However, published literature on the effect of follow-up visits is limited with mixed conclusions. Our goal here is to fully explore the relationship between follow-up visits and the all-cause non-elective 30-day readmission rate (RR) after adjusting for confounders.

Methods and results

To conduct this retrospective observational study, we extracted data for 55,378 adult inpatients from Advocate Health Care, a large, multi-hospital system serving a diverse population in a major metropolitan area. These patients were discharged to Home or Home with Home Health services between June 1, 2013 and April 30, 2015. Our findings from time-dependent Cox proportional hazard models showed that follow-up visits were significantly associated with a reduced RR (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.82-0.91), but in a complicated way because the interaction between follow-up visits and a readmission risk score was significant with p-value < 0.001. Our analysis using logistic models on an adjusted data set confirmed the above findings with the following additional results. First, time matter. Follow-up visits within 2 days were associated with the greatest reduction in RR (adjusted odds ratio: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.63-0.83). Visits beyond 2 days were also associated with a reduction in RR, but the strength of the effect decreased as the time between discharge and follow-up visit increased. Second, the strength of such association varied for patients with different readmission risk scores. Patients with a risk score of 0.113, high but not extremely high risk, had the greatest reduction in RR from follow-up visits. Patients with an extremely high risk score (> 0.334) saw no RR reduction from follow-up visits. Third, a patient was much more likely to have a 2-day follow-up visit if that visit was scheduled before the patient was discharged from the hospital (30% versus < 5%).

Conclusions

Follow-up visits are associated with a reduction in readmission risk. The timing of follow-up visits can be important: beyond two days, the earlier, the better. The effect of follow-up visits is more significant for patients with a high but not extremely high risk of readmission.

SUBMITTER: Tong L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6049937 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and purposeEmergency colectomies are associated with a higher risk of complications compared to elective ones. A critical assessment of complications occurring beyond post-operative day 30 (POD30) is lacking. This study aimed to assess the readmission rate and factors associated with readmission 6-months following emergency colectomy.MethodsA retrospective cohort study of adult patients who underwent emergency colectomy (2010-2018) was performed using the Nationwide Readmissions Database. The cohort was divided into two groups: (i) no readmission and (ii) emergency readmission(s) for complications related to colectomy (defined using ICD-9/10 codes). Readmissions were categorized as either "early" (POD0-30) or "late" (> POD30). Differences between groups were described and multivariable regression controlling for relevant covariates defined a priori were used to identify factors associated with timing of readmission and cost.ResultsOf 141,481 eligible cases, 13.22% (n = 18,699) were readmitted within 6-months of emergency colectomy for colectomy-related complications, 61.63% of which were "late" readmissions (> POD30). The most common reasons for "late" readmission were for bleeding, gastrointestinal, and infectious complications (20.80%, 25.30%, and 32.75%, respectively). On multiple logistic regression, female gender (OR 1.12; 95%CI 1.04-1.21), open procedures (OR 1.12, 95%CI 1.011-1.24), and sigmoidectomies (OR 1.51, 95%CI 1.39-1.65, relative to right hemicolectomies) were the strongest predictors of "late" readmission. On multiple linear regression, "late" readmissions were associated with a $1717.09 USD (95%CI $1717.05-$1717.12) increased cost compared to "early" readmissions.DiscussionThe majority of colectomy-related readmissions following emergency colectomy occur beyond POD30 and are associated with cases that are of overall higher morbidity, as well as open sigmoidectomies. Given the associated increased cost of care, mitigation of such readmissions by close follow-up prior to and beyond POD30 is advisable.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the association of Private, Medicare, and Medicaid/Uninsured insurance type with 30-day Emergency Department visits/Observation Stays (EDOS), readmissions, and costs in a safety-net hospital (SNH) serving diverse socioeconomic status patients.Summary background dataMedicare's Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) disproportionately penalizes SNHs.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study used inpatient National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2013-2019) data merged with cost data. Frailty, expanded Operative Stress Score, case status, and insurance type were used to predict odds of EDOS and readmissions, as well as index hospitalization costs.ResultsThe cohort had 1,477 Private; 1,164 Medicare; and 3,488 Medicaid/Uninsured cases with a patient mean age 52.1 years [SD=14.7] and 46.8% of the cases were performed on male patients. Medicaid/Uninsured (aOR=2.69, CI=2.38-3.05, P<.001) and Medicare (aOR=1.32, CI=1.11-1.56, P=.001) had increased odds of urgent/emergent surgeries and complications versus Private patients. Despite having similar frailty distributions, Medicaid/Uninsured compared to Private patients had higher odds of EDOS (aOR=1.71, CI=1.39-2.11, P<.001), and readmissions (aOR=1.35, CI=1.11-1.65, P=.004), after adjusting for frailty, OSS, and case status, while Medicare patients had similar odds of EDOS and readmissions versus Private. Hospitalization variable cost %change was increased for Medicare (12.5%) and Medicaid/Uninsured (5.9%), but Medicaid/Uninsured was similar to Private after adjusting for urgent/emergent cases.ConclusionsIncreased rates and odds of urgent/emergent cases in Medicaid/Uninsured patients drive increased odds of complications and index hospitalization costs versus Private. SNHs care for higher cost populations while receiving lower reimbursements and are further penalized by the unintended consequences of HRRP. Increasing access to care, especially for Medicaid/Uninsured patients, could reduce urgent/emergent surgeries resulting in fewer complications, EDOS/readmissions, and costs.

Project description:BackgroundPost-hospital discharge follow-up appointments are intended to evaluate patients' recovery following a hospitalization, but it is unclear how appointment statuses are associated with readmissions.ObjectiveTo examine the association between post-discharge ambulatory follow-up status, (1) having a scheduled appointment and (2) arriving to said appointment, and 30-day readmission.Design and settingA retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized at 12 hospitals in an Integrated Delivery Network and their ambulatory appointments in that same network.Patients and main measuresWe included 50,772 patients who had an ambulatory appointment within 18 months of an inpatient admission in 2018. Primary outcome was readmission within 30 days post-discharge.Key resultsThere were 32,108 (63.2%) patients with scheduled follow-up appointments and 18,664 (36.8%) patients with no follow-up; 28,313 (88.2%) patients arrived, 3149 (9.8%) missed, and 646 (2.0%) were readmitted prior to their scheduled appointments. Overall 30-day readmission rate was 7.3%; 6.0% [5.75-6.31] for those who arrived, 8.8% [8.44-9.25] for those without follow-up, and 10.3% [9.28-11.40] for those who missed a scheduled appointment (p < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, patients who arrived at their appointment in the first week following discharge were significantly less likely to be readmitted than those not having any follow-up scheduled (medical adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.57 [0.47-0.69], p < 0.001; surgical aHR 0.58 [0.44-0.75], p < 0.001) There was an increased risk at weeks 3 and 4 for medical patients who arrived at a follow-up compared to those with no follow-up scheduled (week 3 aHR 1.29 [1.10-1.51], p = 0.001; week 4 aHR 1.46 [1.26-1.70], p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe benefit of patients arriving to their post-discharge appointments compared with patients who missed their follow-up visits or had no follow-up scheduled, is only significant during first week post-discharge, suggesting that coordination within 1 week of discharge is critical in reducing 30-day readmissions.