Search

ImportanceThere has been a paucity of research examining the risk and cost of readmission among patients with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) after a planned hospitalization for a broad set of medical and surgical procedures.ObjectiveTo examine 30-day readmission rates and episode costs, including readmission costs, for patients with ADRD compared with their counterparts without ADRD across Michigan hospitals.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study used 2012 to 2017 Michigan Value Collaborative data across different medical and surgical services stratified by ADRD diagnosis. A total of 66 676 admission episodes of care that occurred between January 1, 2012, and June 31, 2017, were identified for patients with ADRD using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) and International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnostic codes for ADRD, along with 656 235 admission episodes in patients without ADRD. Using a generalized linear model framework, this study risk adjusted, price standardized, and performed episode payment winsorization. Payments were risk adjusted for age, sex, Hierarchical Condition Categories, insurance type, and prior 6-month payments. Selection bias was accounted for using multivariable logistic regression with propensity score matching without replacement using calipers. Data analysis was performed from January to December 2019.ExposurePresence of ADRD.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were 30-day readmission rate at the patient and county levels, 30-day readmission cost, and 30-day total episode cost across 28 medical and surgical services.ResultsThe study included 722 911 hospitalization episodes, of which 66 676 were related to patients with ADRD (mean [SD] age, 83.4 [8.6] years; 42 439 [63.6%] female) and 656 235 were related to patients without ADRD (mean [SD] age, 66.0 [15.4] years; 351 246 [53.5%] female). After propensity score matching, 58 629 hospitalization episodes were included for each group. Readmission rates were 21.5% (95% CI, 21.2%-21.8%) for patients with ADRD and 14.7% (95% CI, 14.4%-15.0%) for patients without ADRD (difference, 6.75 percentage points; 95% CI, 6.31-7.19 percentage points). Cost of 30-day readmission was $467 higher (95% CI of difference, $289-$645) among patients with ADRD ($8378; 95% CI, $8263-$8494) than those without ($7912; 95% CI, $7776-$8047). Across all 28 service lines examined, total 30-day episode costs were $2794 higher for patients with ADRD vs patients without ADRD ($22 371 vs $19 578; 95% CI of difference, $2668-$2919).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, patients with ADRD had higher readmission rates and overall readmission and episode costs than their counterparts without ADRD. Hospitals may need to be better equipped to care for patients with ADRD, especially in the postdischarge period. Considering that any type of hospitalization may put patients with ADRD at a high risk of 30-day readmission, judicious preoperative assessment, postoperative discharge, and care planning are strongly advised for this vulnerable patient population.

Key Points Question What factors are associated with a potentially missed diagnosis of appendicitis in the emergency department among adults and children? Findings In this cohort study of 123 711 patients diagnosed with appendicitis, insurance claims data indicated that appendicitis was potentially missed in 6.0% of adults and 4.4% of children during the initial emergency department visit. Factors associated with potentially missed appendicitis included female sex, the coexistence of abdominal pain and constipation, and the presence of comorbidities. Meaning Population-based estimates of the rates of potentially missed appendicitis reveal opportunities for improvement and identify factors that may alert clinicians and mitigate the risk of missed diagnosis., Importance Appendicitis may be missed during initial emergency department (ED) presentation. Objective To compare patients with a potentially missed diagnosis of appendicitis (ie, patients with symptoms associated with appendicitis, including abdominal pain, constipation, nausea and/or vomiting, fever, and diarrhea diagnosed within 1-30 days after initial ED presentation) with patients diagnosed with appendicitis on the same day of ED presentation to identify factors associated with potentially missed appendicitis. Design, Setting, and Participants In this cohort study, a retrospective analysis of commercially insured claims data was conducted from January 1 to December 15, 2019. Patients who presented to the ED with undifferentiated symptoms associated with appendicitis between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, were identified using the Clinformatics Data Mart administrative database (Optum Insights). The study sample comprised eligible adults (aged ≥18 years) and children (aged, This cohort study uses insurance claims data to compare patients with a potentially missed diagnosis of appendicitis with those diagnosed with appendicitis during the initial emergency department visit to identify factors associated with potentially missed appendicitis among adults and children.

Key Points Question Do 30-day outcomes differ after emergency department (ED) visits in rural vs urban settings and in the subset of rural hospitals classified as critical access? Findings In this cohort study of 473 152 matched urban and rural Medicare beneficiaries, risk-adjusted all-cause mortality after rural and urban ED visits was similar, particularly for potentially life-threatening conditions. Critical access hospitals had similar outcomes. Meaning These findings underscore the importance of rural and critical access EDs for treatment of life-threatening conditions among Medicare recipients and have important policy implications given the continued increase in rural hospital closures., This cohort study compares 30-day outcomes among Medicare recipients after rural vs urban emergency department visits and in a subset of rural hospitals classified as critical access using national fee-for-service Medicare data., Importance Rural US residents disproportionately rely on emergency departments (ED), yet little is known about patient outcomes after ED visits to rural hospitals or critical access hospitals (CAHs). Objective To compare 30-day outcomes after rural vs urban ED visits and in CAHs, a subset of rural hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants This propensity-matched, retrospective cohort study used a 20% sample of national Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries from January 1, 2011, to October 31, 2015. Rural and urban ED visits were matched on demographics, patient prior use of EDs, comorbidities, and diagnoses. Thirty-day outcomes overall and stratified by 25 common ED diagnoses were evaluated, with similar analysis of CAHs vs non-CAHs. Data were analyzed from February 15, 2020, to May 17, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were ED revisits with and without hospitalization. Results The matched cohort included 473 152 rural and urban Medicare beneficiaries with a mean (SD) age of 75.1 (7.9) years (59.1% and 59.3% women, respectively; 86.9% and 87.1% White, respectively). Medicare beneficiaries at rural vs urban EDs experienced similar all-cause 30-day mortality (3.9% vs 4.1%; effect size, 0.01), ED revisits (18.1% vs 17.8%; effect size, 0.00), and ED revisits with hospitalization (6.0% vs 8.1%; effect size, 0.00). Rural ED visits were associated with more transfer (6.2% vs 2.0%; effect size, 0.22) and fewer hospitalizations (24.7% vs 39.2; effect size, 0.31). Stratified by diagnosis, patients in rural EDs with life-threatening illnesses experienced more transfer with 30-day mortality similar to that of patients in urban EDs. In contrast, mortality differed for patients in rural EDs with symptom-based diagnoses, including chest pain (odds ratio [OR], 1.54 [95% CI, 1.25-1.89]), nausea and vomiting (OR, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.26-2.24), and abdominal pain (OR, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.42-2.10]). All findings were similar for CAHs. Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this cohort study of rural ED care suggest that patient mortality for potentially life-threatening conditions is comparable to that in urban settings. Further research is needed to understand the sources of greater rural ED mortality for symptom-based conditions. These findings underscore the importance of ensuring access to treatment of life-threatening conditions at local EDs in rural communities, which are increasingly endangered by hospital closures.