Prediction Model for 30-day Hospital Readmissions among Patients Discharged Receiving Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy (OPAT).

Clinical Infectious Diseases (Impact Factor: 8.89). 12/2013; 58(6). DOI: 10.1093/cid/cit920
Source: PubMed


Factors associated with readmission for patients prescribed outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) at hospital discharge have not been definitively identified. The study aim was to develop a model of 30-day readmissions for OPAT patients.

A database comprising 782 OPAT patients treated between 2009 and 2011 at a single academic center was created. Variables collected included patient demographics, comorbidities, infections, and antibiotic classes. Final model discrimination was assessed using the c-statistic, and calibration was examined graphically.

Mean patient age was 58 years (range, 18-95 years), 43% were women, and the most common diagnoses were bacteremia (24%), osteomyelitis (20%), and pyelonephritis (13%). The unplanned 30-day readmission rate was 26%. The leading indications for readmission were non-infection related (30%), worsening infection (29%), and new infection (19%). The final regression model consisted of age (odds ratio [OR], 1.09 per decade; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.21), aminoglycoside use (OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.17-4.57), resistant organisms (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.03-2.36), and number of prior hospital discharges without intravenous antibiotics in the past 12 months (OR, 1.20 per prior admission; 95% CI, 1.09-1.32). The c-statistic was 0.61 and the highest-risk quintile of patients had almost a 3-fold higher rate of readmission compared to the lowest.

Patients prescribed OPAT are at risk for readmission. A subgroup of patients at especially high risk can be identified using easily obtainable clinical characteristics at the time of hospital discharge. More intensive interventions to prevent OPAT readmissions should be targeted and tested with those at highest risk.

Download full-text


Available from: David R Snydman, Nov 19, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) programs should strive to deliver safe, cost effective, and high quality care. One of the keys to developing and sustaining a high quality OPAT program is to understand the common challenges or barriers to OPAT delivery. We review the most common challenges to starting and managing an OPAT program and give practical advice on addressing these issues.
    Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 06/2014; 10(1):459-65. DOI:10.2147/TCRM.S48906 · 1.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Fifteen years ago, only a small minority of hospital inpatients were considered suitable for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) services ( Wiselka and Nicholson, 1997 ). Now, almost 70% of those treated with intravenous (IV) antibiotics as hospital inpatients are considered suitable ( Hitchcock et al, 2009 ). Around 38-53% of those requiring OPAT are able to self-administer (Hills et al, 2012). The demand for IV antimicrobial therapy is increasing and the way it is being delivered is changing. The delivery of IV anti-microbial therapy in the community has the potential to make a huge difference to the way health care is delivered. It can enable people who would once have been admitted to hospital to be treated in the community. It can facilitate early hospital discharge ( Nazarko, 2013a ). Potentially, there are huge benefits in developing OPAT but there are also risks. People may be subjected to an invasive treatment when it is not necessary; therapy may be continued when it is no longer necessary ( Nazarko, 2013b ; Conant et al, 2014 ); and patients may be selected for OPAT who would be best treated in hospital. The key to providing safe and effective care is to work together to maximise benefits and minimise risk ( Duncan et al, 2013 ). This article examines how acute and community services can work together to ensure appropriate selection, treatment and follow-up of patients.
    British journal of nursing (Mark Allen Publishing) 07/2014; 23(Sup14):S30-S36. DOI:10.12968/bjon.2014.23.Sup14.S30
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Home intravenous antibiotic therapy is an alternative to hospital admission for moderately severe infections. However, few studies have analyzed its safety and effectiveness in the treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria. The purpose of this study is to analyze the safety and effectiveness of home intravenous antibiotic therapy in multidrug-resistant bacterial infections. We analyzed prospectively all patients admitted to our service who underwent home intravenous antibiotic therapy during the period 2008-2012. All the treatments were administered by caretakers or self-administered by patients, through elastomeric infusion devices. Effectiveness was evaluated by analyzing the readmission rate for poor infection control. Safety was evaluated by analyzing adverse events, catheter-related complications, and readmissions not related to poor infection control. There were 433 admissions (in 355 patients) for home intravenous antibiotic therapy during the study period. There were 226 (52.2 %) admissions due to multidrug-resistant bacterial infections and 207 (47.8 %) due to non-multidrug-resistant infections. Hospital readmissions in patients with multidrug-resistant infections were uncommon. Multidrug-resistant enterococcal infections, healthcare-associated infections, and carbapenem therapy were independent variables associated with increased readmissions due to poor infection control. Readmissions not related to poor infection control, adverse events, and catheter-related complications were similar in multidrug-resistant compared to non-multidrug-resistant bacterial infections. Home intravenous therapy, administered by patients or their caretakers using elastomeric infusion pumps, was safe and effective for the treatment of most multidrug-resistant bacterial infections.
    European Journal of Clinical Microbiology 02/2015; 34(6). DOI:10.1007/s10096-015-2330-0 · 2.67 Impact Factor
Show more