The Role of Outpatient Facilities in Explaining Variations in Risk-Adjusted Readmission Rates between Hospitals

Department of Pediatrics, Center for Outcomes Research, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 2.49). 09/2009; 45(1):24-41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.01043.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Validate risk-adjusted readmission rates as a measure of inpatient quality of care after accounting for outpatient facilities, using premature infants as a test case.
Surviving infants born between January 1, 1998 and December 12, 2001 at five Northern California Kaiser Permanente neonatal intensive care units (NICU) with 1-year follow-up at 32 outpatient facilities.
Using a retrospective cohort of premature infants (N=898), Poisson's regression models determined the risk-adjusted variation in unplanned readmissions between 0-1 month, 0-3 months, 3-6 months, and 3-12 months after discharge attributable to patient factors, NICUs, and outpatient facilities.
Prospectively collected maternal and infant hospital data were linked to inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy databases.
Medical and sociodemographic factors explained the largest amount of variation in risk-adjusted readmission rates. NICU facilities were significantly associated with readmission rates up to 1 year after discharge, but the outpatient facility where patients received outpatient care can explain much of this variation. Characteristics of outpatient facilities, not the NICUs, were associated with variations in readmission rates.
Ignoring outpatient facilities leads to an overstatement of the effect of NICUs on readmissions and ignores a significant cause of variations in readmissions.

Download full-text


Available from: Dylan S Small, Jun 22, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hospital readmission rates are increasingly used as signals of hospital performance and a basis for hospital reimbursement. However, their interpretation may be complicated by differential patient survival rates. If patient characteristics are not perfectly observable and hospitals differ in their mortality rates, then hospitals with low mortality rates are likely to have a larger share of un-observably sicker patients at risk of a readmission. Their performance on readmissions will then be underestimated. We examine hospitals' performance relaxing the assumption of independence between mortality and readmissions implicitly adopted in many empirical applications. We use data from the Hospital Episode Statistics on emergency admissions for fractured hip in 290,000 patients aged 65 and over from 2003 to 2008 in England. We find evidence of sample selection bias that affects inference from traditional models. We use a bivariate sample selection model to allow for the selection process and the dichotomous nature of the outcome variables.
    Journal of Health Economics 06/2013; 32(5):909-921. DOI:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2013.06.004 · 2.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    01/2010; Schweizerisches Gesundheitsobservatorium., ISBN: 978-3-907872-66-6
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To examine the viability of a hospital readmission quality metric for infants requiring neonatal intensive care. Methods Two cohorts were constructed. First, a cohort was constructed from infants born in California from 1995 to 2009 at 23 to 34 weeks' gestation, using birth certificates linked to maternal and infant inpatient records (N = 343,625). Second, the Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) identified Medicaid-enrolled infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) during their birth hospitalization in 18 states during 2006 to 2008 (N = 254,722). Hospital and state-level unadjusted readmission rates and rates adjusted for gestational age, birth weight, insurance status, gender, and common complications of preterm birth were calculated. Results Within California, there were wide variations in hospital-level readmission rates that were not completely explained through risk adjustment. Similar unadjusted variation was seen between states using MAX data, but risk adjustment and calculation of hospital-level rates were not possible because of missing gestational age, birth weight, and birth hospital data. Conclusions The California cohort shows significant variation in hospital-level readmission rates after risk adjustment, supporting the premise that readmission rates of prematurely born infants may reflect care quality. However, state data do not include term and early term infants requiring neonatal intensive care. MAX allows for multistate comparisons of all infants requiring NICU care. However, there were extensive missing data in the few states with sufficient information on managed care patients to calculate state-level measures. Constructing a valid readmission measure for NICU care across diverse states and regions requires improved data collection, including potential linkage between MAX data and vital statistics records.
    Academic Pediatrics 09/2014; 14(5):S47–S53. DOI:10.1016/j.acap.2014.06.010 · 2.23 Impact Factor