Resource Utilization for Observation-Status Stays at Children's Hospitals

The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
PEDIATRICS (Impact Factor: 5.47). 05/2013; 131(6). DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-2494
Source: PubMed


Background and objective:
Observation status, in contrast to inpatient status, is a billing designation for hospital payment. Observation-status stays are presumed to be shorter and less resource-intensive, but utilization for pediatric observation-status stays has not been studied. The goal of this study was to describe resource utilization characteristics for patients in observation and inpatient status in a national cohort of hospitalized children in the Pediatric Health Information System.

This study was a retrospective cohort from 2010 of observation- and inpatient-status stays of ≤2 days; all children were admitted from the emergency department. Costs were analyzed and described. Comparison between costs adjusting for age, severity, and length of stay were conducted by using random-effect mixed models to account for clustering of patients within hospitals.

Observation status was assigned to 67 230 (33.3%) discharges, but its use varied across hospitals (2%-45%). Observation-status stays had total median costs of $2559, including room costs and $678 excluding room costs. Twenty-five diagnoses accounted for 74% of stays in observation status, 4 of which were used for detailed analyses: asthma (n = 6352), viral gastroenteritis (n = 4043), bronchiolitis (n = 3537), and seizure (n = 3289). On average, after risk adjustment, observation-status stays cost $260 less than inpatient-status stays for these select 4 diagnoses. Large overlaps in costs were demonstrated for both types of stay.

Variability in use of observation status with large overlap in costs and potential lower reimbursement compared with inpatient status calls into question the utility of segmenting patients according to billing status and highlights a financial risk for institutions with a high volume of pediatric patients in observation status.

14 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To assess readmission rates identified by 3M-Potentially Preventable Readmissions software (3M-PPRs) in a national cohort of children's hospitals. Study design: A total of 1 719 617 hospitalizations for 1 531 828 unique patients in 58 children's hospitals from 2009 to 2011 from the Children's Hospital Association Case-Mix Comparative database were examined. Main outcome measures included rates, diagnoses, and costs of potentially preventable readmissions (PPRs) and all-cause readmissions. Results: The 7-, 15-, and 30-day rates by 3M-PPRs were 2.5%, 4.1%, and 6.2%, respectively. Corresponding all-cause readmission rates were 5.0%, 8.7%, and 13.3%. At 30 days, 60.6% of all-cause readmissions were considered nonpreventable by 3M-PPRs, more than one-half of which were related to malignancies. The percentage of readmissions rated as potentially preventable was similar at all 3 time intervals. Readmissions after chemotherapy, acute leukemia, and cystic fibrosis were all considered nonpreventable, and at least 80% of readmissions after index admissions for sickle cell crisis, bronchiolitis, ventricular shunt procedures, asthma, and appendectomy were designated potentially preventable. Total costs for all readmissions were $1.7 billion; PPRs accounted for 27.3% of these costs. The most costly readmissions were associated with ventricular shunt procedures ($26.5 million/year), seizures ($15.5 million/year), and sickle cell crisis ($15.0 million/year). Conclusions: Rates of PPRs were significantly lower than all-cause readmission rates more than one-half of which were caused by exclusion of malignancies. Annual costs of PPRs, although significant in the aggregate, appear to represent a much smaller cost-savings opportunity for children than for adults. Our study may help guide children's hospitals to focus readmission reduction strategies on areas where the financial vulnerability is greatest based on 3M-PPRs.
    2013 American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference and Exhibition; 10/2013
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Inpatient pediatric mental health is a priority topic for national quality measurement and improvement, but nationally representative data on the patients admitted or their diagnoses are lacking. Our objectives were: to describe pediatric mental health hospitalizations at general medical facilities admitting children nationally; to assess which pediatric mental health diagnoses are frequent and costly at these hospitals; and to examine whether the most frequent diagnoses are similar to those at free-standing children's hospitals. We examined all discharges in 2009 for patients aged 3 to 20 years in the nationally representative Kids' Inpatient Database (KID) and in the Pediatric Health Information System (free-standing children's hospitals). Main outcomes were frequency of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification-defined mental health diagnostic groupings (primary and nonprimary diagnosis) and, using KID, resource utilization (defined by diagnostic grouping aggregate annual charges). Nearly 10% of pediatric hospitalizations nationally were for a primary mental health diagnosis, compared with 3% of hospitalizations at free-standing children's hospitals. Predictors of hospitalizations for a primary mental health problem were older age, male gender, white race, and insurance type. Nationally, the most frequent and costly primary mental health diagnoses were depression (44.1% of all mental health admissions; $1.33 billion), bipolar disorder (18.1%; $702 million), and psychosis (12.1%; $540 million). We identified the child mental health inpatient diagnoses with the highest frequency and highest costs as depression, bipolar disorder, and psychosis, with substance abuse an important comorbid diagnosis. These diagnoses can be used as priority conditions for pediatric mental health inpatient quality measurement.
    PEDIATRICS 03/2014; 133(4). DOI:10.1542/peds.2013-3165 · 5.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pediatric observation units (OUs) have demonstrated reductions in lengths of stay (LOS) and costs of care. Hospital-level outcomes across all observation-status stays have not been evaluated in relation to the presence of a dedicated OU in the hospital. To compare observation-status stay outcomes in hospitals with and without a dedicated OU. Cross-sectional analysis of hospital administrative data. Observation-status stay outcomes were compared in hospitals with and without a dedicated OU across 4 categories: (1) LOS, (2) standardized costs, (3) conversion to inpatient status, and (4) return care. Observation-status stays in 31 free-standing children's hospitals contributing observation patient data to the Pediatric Health Information System database, 2011. Fifty-one percent of the 136,239 observation-status stays in 2011 occurred in 14 hospitals with a dedicated OU; the remainder were in 17 hospitals without. The percentage of observation-status same-day discharges was higher in hospitals with a dedicated OU compared with hospitals without (23.8 vs 22.1, P < 0.001), but risk-adjusted LOS in hours and total standardized costs were similar. Conversion to inpatient status was higher in hospitals with a dedicated OU (11.06%) compared with hospitals without (9.63%, P < 0.01). Adjusted odds of return visits and readmissions were comparable. The presence of a dedicated OU appears to have an influence on same-day and morning discharges across all observation-status stays without impacting other hospital-level outcomes. Inclusion of location of care (eg, dedicated OU, inpatient unit, emergency department) in hospital administrative datasets would allow for more meaningful comparisons of models of hospital care. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2015. © 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine. © 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine.
    Journal of Hospital Medicine 03/2015; 10(6). DOI:10.1002/jhm.2339 · 2.30 Impact Factor