Hospital care may not affect the risk of readmission.
ABSTRACT : Thirty-day readmissions have become a focal point for reducing health care spending, because they are viewed as a marker of the quality of hospital care. However, if increased time in the hospital is associated with better care, attempts to shorten length of stay (LOS) may result in increased rates of readmission. As such, we sought to explore the association of an incremental added day in LOS with the rate of readmission.
: We examined the rate of readmission at 30 and 120 days for 4151 patients admitted to a general internal medicine unit between July 2004 and March 2006. We used binary logistic regression to examine the relationship between an incremental added day in LOS and the probability of readmission.
: Readmission rates were 8.7% at 30 days and 21.0% at 120 days, respectively. After controlling for demographic characteristics and severity of illness, we found that the probability of readmission varied little for an incremental added day in LOS.
: Our findings suggest that more hospital care may not affect the likelihood of readmission and thus denying payment for readmission may be unwarranted.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Abstract Objectives. Accountable care puts pressure on hospitals to manage care episodes. Initial length of stay (ILOS) and readmission risk are important elements of a care episode and measures of care quality. Understanding the association between these two measures can guide hospital efforts in managing care episodes. This study was designed to explore the association between ILOS and readmission risk in a cohort of pediatric asthma patients. Materials/Methods. The sample cohort (n=4965) consisted of all asthma patients discharged from Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota (CHC MN) from January 2008 through August 2012. Asthma discharges included cases with a principal diagnosis of asthma or certain respiratory cases with asthma listed as a secondary diagnosis. Multiple logistic regression was used to test associations, adjusting for covariates. Results. Adjusting for covariates, we found no significant association between ILOS and readmission (OR:1.04[95%CI:0.98-1.10]). Analyzing ILOS categorically by day, one-day stays did not have a significantly higher readmission risk (OR:1.27[95% CI: 0.87-1.85]) than two-day stays, which had the lowest observed readmission risk. Risk increased as ILOS exceeded 2 days but was not significantly different by day. We found no association when comparing the difference in actual versus expected ILOS and readmission risk (shorter than expected OR:1.13[95%CI:0.74-1.71]; longer than expected OR:0.97[95%CI:0.69-1.38]). Conclusions. Attempts to prolong ILOS would dramatically increase costs with little impact on readmissions. For example, increasing one-day visits to two-day visits would increase hospital patient days 38% (1870 days) in this cohort while decreasing total readmissions by 3.8%[95%CI:3.6-4.0%]. Understanding the mechanisms that impact readmissions is essential in evaluating cost-effective approaches to improving patient outcomes and lowering the cost of care.Journal of Asthma 06/2013; DOI:10.3109/02770903.2013.816726 · 1.83 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Introduction: It has been estimated that re-hospitalisation may be accountable for almost half of all the hospital admissions in the elderly. Similarly studies have shown that re-hospitalisation account for up to 60% of hospital expenditure. Aim: To assess the potential reasons for re-hospitalisation of elderly medical patients and the outcome of these patients. Methodology: It was a hospital based cross-sectional observational study done from May 2011 to July 2011. All elderly (>60 years) patients readmitted to the General Medical Ward and Medical Emergency Wards were identified. Short admissions for therapeutic or diagnostic procedures were excluded. The patient’s diagnosis at time of current admission and the old records of past admissions were thoroughly scrutinized. The patient was followed up during his/her hospital stay and the outcome was assessed. Results: A total of 48 cases were identified. Fifty two percent of patients were re-hospitalised within 6 months (28% within a month, 6% in 2 months, 8% in 4 months and 10% in 6 months). Two or more comorbidities were present in 69% patients. Seventy three percent patients improved, 21% showed no change in status and 6% deteriorated. Disease related factors: 33% re-hospitalisation were found to be due to unavoidable relapse of underlying chronic disease, 25% due to failed trial with outpatient management, 17% due to complication of the underlying disease, 16% due to independent new disease, 5% due to adverse drug reaction and 4% due to decompensation of other co-morbid conditions. Patient’s related factors: 33% had perception of poor self rated general health, 27% premature discharge/inadequate rehabilitation, 24% had poor compliance to recommended prescription and 19% due to poor outpatient follow up. Conclusion: Our study shows that most of the re-hospitalisation were due to the relapses of underlying chronic diseases and were unavoidable. The other important findings were the poor perception of self rated general health, poor follow up with the outpatient clinic and non-compliance to drugs prescribed.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Introduction Hospital readmission rates are increasingly used for both quality improvement and cost control. However, the validity of readmission rates as a measure of quality of hospital care is not evident. We aimed to give an overview of the different methodological aspects in the definition and measurement of readmission rates that need to be considered when interpreting readmission rates as a reflection of quality of care. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review, using the bibliographic databases Embase, Medline OvidSP, Web-of-Science, Cochrane central and PubMed for the period of January 2001 to May 2013. Results The search resulted in 102 included papers. We found that definition of the context in which readmissions are used as a quality indicator is crucial. This context includes the patient group and the specific aspects of care of which the quality is aimed to be assessed. Methodological flaws like unreliable data and insufficient case-mix correction may confound the comparison of readmission rates between hospitals. Another problem occurs when the basic distinction between planned and unplanned readmissions cannot be made. Finally, the multi-faceted nature of quality of care and the correlation between readmissions and other outcomes limit the indicator's validity. Conclusions Although readmission rates are a promising quality indicator, several methodological concerns identified in this study need to be addressed, especially when the indicator is intended for accountability or pay for performance. We recommend investing resources in accurate data registration, improved indicator description, and bundling outcome measures to provide a more complete picture of hospital care.PLoS ONE 11/2014; 9(11):e112282. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0112282 · 3.53 Impact Factor