Search

Background: It is desirable not to include planned readmissions in readmission measures because they represent deliberate, scheduled care., Objectives: To develop an algorithm to identify planned readmissions, describe its performance characteristics, and identify improvements., Design: Consensus-driven algorithm development and chart review validation study at 7 acute-care hospitals in 2 health systems., Patients: For development, all discharges qualifying for the publicly reported hospital-wide readmission measure. For validation, all qualifying same-hospital readmissions that were characterized by the algorithm as planned, and a random sampling of same-hospital readmissions that were characterized as unplanned., Measurements: We calculated weighted sensitivity and specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the algorithm (version 2.1), compared to gold standard chart review., Results: In consultation with 27 experts, we developed an algorithm that characterizes 7.8% of readmissions as planned. For validation we reviewed 634 readmissions. The weighted sensitivity of the algorithm was 45.1% overall, 50.9% in large teaching centers and 40.2% in smaller community hospitals. The weighted specificity was 95.9%, positive predictive value was 51.6%, and negative predictive value was 94.7%. We identified 4 minor changes to improve algorithm performance. The revised algorithm had a weighted sensitivity 49.8% (57.1% at large hospitals), weighted specificity 96.5%, positive predictive value 58.7%, and negative predictive value 94.5%. Positive predictive value was poor for the 2 most common potentially planned procedures: diagnostic cardiac catheterization (25%) and procedures involving cardiac devices (33%)., Conclusions: An administrative claims-based algorithm to identify planned readmissions is feasible and can facilitate public reporting of primarily unplanned readmissions., (© 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine.)

Rationale: Care coordination has shown inconsistent results as a mechanism to reduce hospital readmission and postdischarge emergency department (ED) visit rates., Objective: To assess the impact of a supplemental care bundle targeting high-risk elderly inpatients implemented by hospital-based staff compared to usual care on a composite outcome of hospital readmission and/or ED visitation at 30 and 60 days following discharge., Patients/methods: Randomized controlled pilot study in 41 medical inpatients predisposed to unplanned readmission or postdischarge ED visitation, conducted at Baylor University Medical Center. The intervention group care bundle consisted of medication counseling/reconciliation by a clinical pharmacist (CP), condition specific education/enhanced discharge planning by a care coordinator (CC), and phone follow-up., Results: Groups had similar baseline characteristics. Intervention group readmission/ED visit rates were reduced at 30 days compared to the control group (10.0% versus 38.1%, P = 0.04), but not at 60 days (30.0% versus 42.9%, P = 0.52). For those patients who had a readmission/postdischarge ED visit, the time interval to this event was longer in the intervention group compared to usual care (36.2 versus 15.7 days, P = 0.05). Study power was insufficient to reliably compare the effects of the intervention on lengths of index hospital stay between groups., Conclusions: A targeted care bundle delivered to high-risk elderly inpatients decreased unplanned acute health care utilization up to 30 days following discharge. Dissipation of this effect by 60 days postdischarge defines reasonable expectations for analogous hospital-based educational interventions. Further research is needed regarding the impacts of similar care bundles in larger populations across a variety of inpatient settings., ((c) 2009 Society of Hospital Medicine.)