Dataset Information

Aiming to Improve Readmissions Through InteGrated Hospital Transitions (AIRTIGHT): a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Despite years of intense focus, inpatient and observation readmission rates remain high and largely unchanged. Hospitals have little, robust evidence to guide the selection of interventions effective at reducing 30-day readmissions in real-world settings. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate if implementation of recent recommendations for hospital transition programs is effective at reducing 30-day readmissions in a population discharged to home and at high-risk for readmission. DESIGN:A non-blinded, pragmatic randomized controlled trial ( Clinicaltrials.gov : NCT02763202) conducted at two hospitals in Charlotte, North Carolina. PATIENTS:A total of 1876 adult patients, under the care of a hospitalist, and at high risk for readmissions. INTERVENTION:Random allocation to a Transition Services (TS) program (n =?935) that bridges inpatient, outpatient, and home settings, providing patients virtual and in-person access to a dedicated multidisciplinary team for 30-days, or usual care (n =?941). MAIN MEASURE:Thirty-day, unplanned, inpatient, or observation readmission rate. KEY RESULTS:The 30-day readmission rate was 15.2% in the TS group and 16.3% in the usual care group (RR 0.93; 95% [CI, 0.76 to 1.15]; P?=?0.52). There were no significant differences in readmissions at 60 and 90 days or in 30-day Emergency Department visit rates. Patients, who were referred to TS and readmitted, had less Intensive Care Unit admissions 15.5% vs. 26.8% (RR 0.74; 95% [CI, 0.59 to 0.93]; P?=?0.02). CONCLUSIONS:An intervention inclusive of contemporary recommendations does not reduce a high-risk population's 30-day readmission rate. The high crossover to usual care (74.8%) reflects the challenge of non-participation that is ubiquitous in the real-world implementation of population health interventions. TRIAL REGISTRY:ClinicalTrials.gov ; registration ID number: NCT02763202, URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02763202.

SUBMITTER: McWilliams A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6318199 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Aiming to Improve Readmissions Through InteGrated Hospital Transitions (AIRTIGHT): a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

McWilliams Andrew A Roberge Jason J Anderson William E WE Moore Charity G CG Rossman Whitney W Murphy Stephanie S McCall Stephannie S Brown Ryan R Carpenter Shannon S Rissmiller Scott S Furney Scott S

Journal of general internal medicine 20180814 1

<h4>Background</h4>Despite years of intense focus, inpatient and observation readmission rates remain high and largely unchanged. Hospitals have little, robust evidence to guide the selection of interventions effective at reducing 30-day readmissions in real-world settings.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate if implementation of recent recommendations for hospital transition programs is effective at reducing 30-day readmissions in a population discharged to home and at high-risk for readmission.<h4>De ...[more]

PMID: 30109585

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHospital readmissions remain highly prevalent despite being the target of policies and financial penalties. Evidence comparing the effectiveness and costs of interventions to reduce readmissions is lacking, leaving healthcare systems with little guidance on how to improve quality and avoid costly penalties. Effective interventions likely need to bridge inpatient and outpatient settings, incorporate information technology, and use dedicated providers. Such complex innovations will require rigorous evaluation. The framework of quality improvement research provides an approach that both improves care locally and contributes to closing the current knowledge gaps for readmissions. In this trial, we will study a comprehensive intervention that incorporates these recommendations into an integrated practice unit, called transition services, with an aim of reducing 30-day readmission rates.Methods/designWe describe a nonblinded, pragmatic, controlled trial with two parallel groups comprising an evaluation of the effect of referral to a provider-led integrated practice unit, inclusive of comprehensive multidisciplinary care, dedicated paramedicine providers, and virtual visits, on 30-day readmission rates for high-risk hospitalized patients. An automated risk-scoring system will randomly generate referrals to either transition services or usual care for 1520 hospitalized patients who score as high-risk for readmission. Transition services will then engage with patients in the hospital setting using a patient navigator and provide bridging outpatient services for the 30 days following discharge. All outcome data are retrieved electronically from administrative medical records. After reapplication of inclusion and exclusion criteria at the time of hospital discharge, analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle such that patients will be analyzed on the basis of the referral group to which they were initially randomized.DiscussionThe hospital transition program under study is complex and integrates the latest recommendations for readmission reduction strategies. As healthcare systems innovate to address readmissions through such complex interventions, there is significant benefit for stakeholders to have a clear understanding of the potential reach, cost, and real-world effectiveness. The pragmatic methods described here provide a template for conducting quality improvement research that fits seamlessly into existing care delivery and improvement efforts, leading to better-informed strategic decisions and the investments necessary to transform care and value for patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02763202 . Registered 3 March 2016 (retrospectively registered).

Project description:IntroductionMinority-serving hospitals (MSHs) need evidence-based strategies tailored to the populations they serve to improve patient-centered outcomes after hospitalization.MethodsWe conducted a pragmatic randomized clinical trial (RCT) from October 2014 to January 2017 at a MSH comparing the effectiveness of a stakeholder-supported Navigator intervention vs. Usual care on post-hospital patient experience, outcomes, and healthcare utilization. Community health workers and peer coaches delivered the intervention which included (1) in-hospital visits to assess barriers to health/healthcare and to develop a personalized Discharge Patient Education Tool (DPET); (2) a home visit to review the DPET; and (3) telephone-based peer coaching. The co-primary outcomes were between-group comparisons of 30-day changes in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures of anxiety and informational support (minimum important difference is 2 to 5 units change); a p-value <0.025 was considered significant using intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included death, ED visits, or readmissions and measures of emotional, social, and physical health at 30 and 60 days.ResultsWe enrolled 1029 adults hospitalized with heart failure (28%), pneumonia (22%), MI (10%), COPD (11%), or sickle cell disease (29%). Over 80% were non-Hispanic Black. Overall, there were no significant between-group differences in the 30-day change in anxiety (adjusted difference: -1.6, 97.5% CI -3.3 to 0.1, p=0.03), informational support (adjusted difference: -0.01, 97.5% CI -2.0 to 1.9, p=0.99), or any secondary outcomes. Exploratory analyses suggested the Navigator intervention improved anxiety among participants with COPD, a primary care provider, a hospitalization in the past 12 months, or higher baseline anxiety; among participants without health insurance, the intervention improved informational support (all p-values <0.05).ConclusionsIn this pragmatic RCT at a MSH, the Navigator intervention did not improve post-hospital anxiety, informational support, or other outcomes compared to Usual care. Benefits observed in participant subgroups should be confirmed in future studies.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02114515.

Project description:Background overview and rationaleWe co-developed a multi-component virtual care solution (TtLIVE) for the home mechanical ventilation (HMV) population using the aTouchAway™ platform (Aetonix). The TtLIVE intervention includes (1) virtual home visits; (2) customizable care plans; (3) clinical workflows that incorporate reminders, completion of symptom profiles, and tele-monitoring; and (4) digitally secure communication via messaging, audio, and video calls; (5) Resource library including print and audiovisual material.Objectives and brief methodsOur primary objective is to evaluate the TtLIVE intervention compared to a usual care control group using an eight-center, pragmatic, parallel-group single-blind (outcome assessors) randomized controlled trial. Eligible patients are children and adults newly transitioning to HMV in Ontario, Canada. Our target sample size is 440 participants (220 each arm). Our co-primary outcomes are a number of emergency department (ED) visits in the 12 months after randomization and change in family caregiver (FC) reported Pearlin Mastery Scale score from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcomes also measured in the 12 months post randomization include healthcare utilization measured using a hybrid Ambulatory Home Care Record (AHCR-hybrid), FC burden using the Zarit Burden Interview, and health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D. In addition, we will conduct a cost-utility analysis over a 1-year time horizon and measure process outcomes including healthcare provider time using the Care Coordination Measurement Tool. We will use qualitative interviews in a subset of study participants to understand acceptability, barriers, and facilitators to the TtLIVE intervention. We will administer the Family Experiences with Care Coordination (FECC) to interview participants. We will use Poisson regression for a number of ED visits at 12 months. We will use linear regression for the Pearlin Mastery scale score at 12 months. We will adjust for the baseline score to estimate the effect of the intervention on the primary outcomes. Analysis of secondary outcomes will employ regression, causal, and linear mixed modeling. Primary analysis will follow intention-to-treat principles. We have Research Ethics Board approval from SickKids, Children's Hospital Eastern Ontario, McMaster Children's Hospital, Children's Hospital-London Health Sciences, Sunnybrook Hospital, London Health Sciences, West Park Healthcare Centre, and Ottawa Hospital.DiscussionThis pragmatic randomized controlled single-blind trial will determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the TtLIVE virtual care solution compared to usual care while providing important data on patient and family experience, as well as process measures such as healthcare provider time to deliver the intervention.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04180722 . Registered on November 27, 2019.

Project description:BackgroundPoverty undermines adherence to tuberculosis treatment. Economic support may both encourage and enable patients to complete treatment. In South Africa, which carries a high burden of tuberculosis, such support may improve the currently poor outcomes of patients on tuberculosis treatment. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility and effectiveness of delivering economic support to patients with pulmonary tuberculosis in a high-burden province of South Africa.MethodsThis was a pragmatic, unblinded, two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial, where 20 public sector clinics acted as clusters. Patients with pulmonary tuberculosis in intervention clinics (n?=?2,107) were offered a monthly voucher of ZAR120.00 (approximately US$15) until the completion of their treatment. Vouchers were redeemed at local shops for foodstuffs. Patients in control clinics (n?=?1,984) received usual tuberculosis care.ResultsIntention to treat analysis showed a small but non-significant improvement in treatment success rates in intervention clinics (intervention 76.2%; control 70.7%; risk difference 5.6% (95% confidence interval: -1.2%, 12.3%), P?=?0.107). Low fidelity to the intervention meant that 36.2% of eligible patients did not receive a voucher at all, 32.3% received a voucher for between one and three months and 31.5% received a voucher for four to eight months of treatment. There was a strong dose-response relationship between frequency of receipt of the voucher and treatment success (P <0.001).ConclusionsOur pragmatic trial has shown that, in the real world setting of public sector clinics in South Africa, economic support to patients with tuberculosis does not significantly improve outcomes on treatment. However, the low fidelity to the delivery of our voucher meant that a third of eligible patients did not receive it. Among patients in intervention clinics who received the voucher at least once, treatment success rates were significantly improved. Further operational research is needed to explore how best to ensure the consistent and appropriate delivery of such support to those eligible to receive it.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence-based interventions to reduce hospital readmissions may not generalize to resource-constrained safety-net hospitals. OBJECTIVE:To determine if an intervention by patient navigators (PNs), hospital-based Community Health Workers, reduces readmissions among high risk, low socioeconomic status patients. DESIGN:Randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS:General medicine inpatients having at least one of the following readmission risk factors: (1) age??60 years, (2) any in-network inpatient admission within the past 6 months, (3) length of stay??3 days, (4) admission diagnosis of heart failure, or (5) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The analytic sample included 585 intervention patients and 925 controls. INTERVENTIONS:PNs provided coaching and assistance in navigating the transition from hospital to home through hospital visits and weekly telephone outreach, supporting patients for 30 days post-discharge with discharge preparation, medication management, scheduling of follow-up appointments, communication with primary care, and symptom management. MAIN MEASURES:The primary outcome was in-network 30-day hospital readmissions. Secondary outcomes included rates of outpatient follow-up. We evaluated outcomes for the entire cohort and stratified by patient age >60 years (425 intervention/584 controls) and ?60 years (160 intervention/341 controls). KEY RESULTS:Overall, 30-day readmission rates did not differ between intervention and control patients. However, the two age groups demonstrated marked differences. Intervention patients >60 years showed a statistically significant adjusted absolute 4.1% decrease [95% CI: -8.0%, -0.2%] in readmission with an increase in 30-day outpatient follow-up. Intervention patients ?60 years showed a statistically significant adjusted absolute 11.8% increase [95% CI: 4.4%, 19.0%] in readmission with no change in 30-day outpatient follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:A patient navigator intervention among high risk, safety-net patients decreased readmission among older patients while increasing readmissions among younger patients. Care transition strategies should be evaluated among diverse populations, and younger high risk patients may require novel strategies.

Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have mandated reducing early (30-day) hospital readmissions to improve patient care and reduce costs. Patients with ESKD have elevated early readmission rates, due in part to complex medical regimens but also cognitive impairment, literacy difficulties, low social support, and mood problems. We developed a brief family consultation intervention to address these risk factors and tested whether it would reduce early readmissions. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS:One hundred twenty hospitalized adults with ESKD (mean age=58 years; 50% men; 86% black, 14% white) were recruited from an urban, inpatient nephrology unit. Patients were randomized to the family consultation (n=60) or treatment-as-usual control (n=60) condition. Family consultations, conducted before discharge at bedside or via telephone, educated the family about the patient's cognitive and behavioral risk factors for readmission, particularly cognitive impairment, and how to compensate for them. Blinded medical record reviews were conducted 30 days later to determine readmission status (primary outcome) and any hospital return visit (readmission, emergency department, or observation; secondary outcome). Logistic regressions tested the effects of the consultation versus control on these outcomes. RESULTS:Primary analyses were intent-to-treat. The risk of a 30-day readmission after family consultation (n=12, 20%) was 0.54 compared with treatment-as-usual controls (n=19, 32%), although this effect was not statistically significant (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 1.24; P=0.15). A similar magnitude, nonsignificant result was observed for any 30-day hospital return visit: family consultation (n=19, 32%) versus controls (n=28, 47%; odds ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 1.1; P=0.09). Per protocol analyses (excluding three patients who did not receive the assigned consultation) revealed similar results. CONCLUSIONS:A brief consultation with family members about the patient's cognitive and psychosocial risk factors had no significant effect on 30-day hospital readmission in patients with ESKD.

Dataset Information

Aiming to Improve Readmissions Through InteGrated Hospital Transitions (AIRTIGHT): a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

Publications

Aiming to Improve Readmissions Through InteGrated Hospital Transitions (AIRTIGHT): a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets