Search

Background After nonelective (i.e., semiurgent, urgent and emergent) surgeries, patients discharged from hospitals are at risk of readmissions, emergency department visits or death. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we are undertaking the Post Discharge after Surgery Virtual Care with Remote Automated Monitoring Technology (PVC-RAM) trial to determine if virtual care with remote automated monitoring (RAM) compared with standard care will increase the number of days adult patients remain alive at home after being discharged following nonelective surgery. Methods We are conducting a randomized controlled trial in which 900 adults who are being discharged after nonelective surgery from 8 Canadian hospitals are randomly assigned to receive virtual care with RAM or standard care. Outcome adjudicators are masked to group allocations. Patients in the experimental group learn how to use the study's tablet computer and RAM technology, which will measure their vital signs. For 30 days, patients take daily biophysical measurements and complete a recovery survey. Patients interact with nurses via the cellular modem-enabled tablet, who escalate care to preassigned and available physicians if RAM measurements exceed predetermined thresholds, patients report symptoms, a medication error is identified or the nurses have concerns they cannot resolve. The primary outcome is number of days alive at home during the 30 days after randomization. Interpretation This trial will inform management of patients after discharge following surgery in the COVID-19 pandemic and offer insights for management of patients who undergo nonelective surgery in a nonpandemic setting. Knowledge dissemination will be supported through an online multimedia resource centre, policy briefs, presentations, peer-reviewed journal publications and media engagement. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04344665.

BACKGROUND: The Ottawa chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Risk Scale (OCRS), which consists of 10 criteria, was previously derived to identify patients in the emergency department with COPD who were at high risk for short-term serious outcomes. We sought to validate, prospectively and explicitly, the OCRS when applied by physicians in the emergency department. METHODS: We conducted this prospective cohort study involving patients in the emergency departments at 6 tertiary care hospitals and enrolled adults with acute exacerbation of COPD from May 2011 to December 2013. Physicians evaluated patients for the OCRS criteria, which were recorded on a data form along with the total risk score. We followed patients for 30 days and the primary outcome, short-term serious outcomes, was defined as any of death, admission to monitored unit, intubation, noninvasive ventilation, myocardial infarction (MI) or relapse with hospital admission. RESULTS: We enrolled 1415 patients with a mean age of 70.6 (SD 10.6) years and 50.2% were female. Short-term serious outcomes occurred in 135 (9.5%) cases. Incidence of short-term serious outcomes ranged from 4.6% for a total score of 0 to 100% for a score of 10. Compared with current practice, an OCRS score threshold of greater than 1 would increase sensitivity for short-term serious outcomes from 51.9% to 79.3% and increase admissions from 45.0% to 56.6%. A threshold of greater than 2 would improve sensitivity to 71.9% with 47.9% of patients being admitted. INTERPRETATION: In this clinical validation of a risk-stratification tool for COPD in the emergency department, we found that OCRS showed better sensitivity for short-term serious outcomes compared with current practice. This risk scale can now be used to help emergency department disposition decisions for patients with COPD, which should lead to a decrease in unnecessary admissions and in unsafe discharges.

BACKGROUND A small proportion of patients account for the majority of health care spending. We used detailed clinical and administrative data to explore clinical characteristics, patterns of health care use and changes in cost profiles over time among high-cost inpatients in an acute tertiary care hospital in Ottawa, Ontario. METHODS We identified all people who had 1 or more inpatient admissions to The Ottawa Hospital between Apr. 1, 2009, and Mar. 31, 2012. We calculated the direct inpatient costs using case-costing information to categorize patients into persistently high-cost, episodic high-cost and non-high-cost groups. Within each group, we used discharge abstracts to measure encounter-level characteristics and patterns of inpatient health care use over time. We also developed transition matrices to explore how inpatient costing states changed over time. RESULTS During the study period, 100 178 patients had 132 996 hospital admissions. Hospital spending was often limited to a single year for most of the patients (90.2%), with only a small proportion (7.4%) of patients remaining in the high-cost group in the subsequent year. Patients in the persistently (n = 236) and episodic (n = 5062) high-cost groups were often older, had medically complex conditions and generated most of the costs from nursing care and intensive care. Compared with patients in the other cost groups, those in the persistently high-cost group were more likely to have multiple readmissions (43.4%) and multiple placements in an alternate level of care (19.0%) and were high users of health care services outside of the hospital setting. INTERPRETATION Hospital spending was often limited to a single year for most patients, and only a small proportion of patients remained in the high-cost group in the subsequent year. These persistently high-cost patients had medically complex conditions and often required expensive care. A greater understanding of the circumstances that result in persistent hospital spending remains an area for future work, including an exploration of the potential barriers impeding efficient transition out of acute care for high-risk patients.

Background: Hospital readmissions are important patient outcomes that can be accurately captured with routinely collected administrative data. Hospital-specific readmission rates have been reported as a quality-of-care indicator. However, the extent to which these measures vary with different calculation methods is uncertain. Methods: We identified all discharges from Ontario hospitals from 2005 to 2010 and determined whether patients died or were urgently readmitted within 30 days. For each hospital, we calculated 4 distinct observed-to-expected ratios, estimating the expected number of events using different adjustments for confounders (age and sex v. complete) and different units of analysis (all admissions v. single admission per patient). Results: We included 3 148 648 admissions to hospital for 1 802 704 patients in 162 hospitals. Ratios adjusted for age and sex alone had the greatest variation. Within hospitals, ranges of the 4 ratios averaged 31% of the overall estimate. Readmission ratios adjusted for age and sex showed the lowest correlation (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.48–0.68). Hospital rankings based on the different measures had an average range of 47.4 (standard deviation 32.2) out of 162. Interpretation: We found notable variation in rates of death or urgent readmission within 30 days based on the extent of adjustment for confounders and the unit of analysis. Slight changes in the methods used to calculate hospital-specific readmission rates influence their values and the consequent rankings of hospitals. Our results highlight the caution required when comparing hospital performance using rates of death or urgent readmission within 30 days.

Background Readmissions to hospital are increasingly being used as an indicator of quality of care. However, this approach is valid only when we know what proportion of readmissions are avoidable. We conducted a systematic review of studies that measured the proportion of readmissions deemed avoidable. We examined how such readmissions were measured and estimated their prevalence. Methods We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to identify all studies published from 1966 to July 2010 that reviewed hospital readmissions and that specified how many were classified as avoidable. Results Our search strategy identified 34 studies. Three of the studies used combinations of administrative diagnostic codes to determine whether readmissions were avoidable. Criteria used in the remaining studies were subjective. Most of the studies were conducted at single teaching hospitals, did not consider information from the community or treating physicians, and used only one reviewer to decide whether readmissions were avoidable. The median proportion of readmissions deemed avoidable was 27.1% but varied from 5% to 79%. Three study-level factors (teaching status of hospital, whether all diagnoses or only some were considered, and length of follow-up) were significantly associated with the proportion of admissions deemed to be avoidable and explained some, but not all, of the heterogeneity between the studies. Interpretation All but three of the studies used subjective criteria to determine whether readmissions were avoidable. Study methods had notable deficits and varied extensively, as did the proportion of readmissions deemed avoidable. The true proportion of hospital readmissions that are potentially avoidable remains unclear.

Background: Readmissions to hospital are common, costly and often preventable. An easy-to-use index to quantify the risk of readmission or death after discharge from hospital would help clinicians identify patients who might benefit from more intensive post-discharge care. We sought to derive and validate an index to predict the risk of death or unplanned readmission within 30 days after discharge from hospital to the community. Methods: In a prospective cohort study, 48 patient-level and admission-level variables were collected for 4812 medical and surgical patients who were discharged to the community from 11 hospitals in Ontario. We used a split-sample design to derive and validate an index to predict the risk of death or nonelective readmission within 30 days after discharge. This index was externally validated using administrative data in a random selection of 1 000 000 Ontarians discharged from hospital between 2004 and 2008. Results: Of the 4812 participating patients, 385 (8.0%) died or were readmitted on an unplanned basis within 30 days after discharge. Variables independently associated with this outcome (from which we derived the nmemonic “LACE”) included length of stay (“L”); acuity of the admission (“A”); comorbidity of the patient (measured with the Charlson comorbidity index score) (“C”); and emergency department use (measured as the number of visits in the six months before admission) (“E”). Scores using the LACE index ranged from 0 (2.0% expected risk of death or urgent readmission within 30 days) to 19 (43.7% expected risk). The LACE index was discriminative (C statistic 0.684) and very accurate (Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic 14.1, p = 0.59) at predicting outcome risk. Interpretation: The LACE index can be used to quantify risk of death or unplanned readmission within 30 days after discharge from hospital. This index can be used with both primary and administrative data. Further research is required to determine whether such quantification changes patient care or outcomes.

Background: The exchange of information is an integral component of continuity of health care and may limit or prevent costly duplication of tests and treatments. This study determined the probability that patient information from previous visits with other physicians was available for a current physician visit. Methods: We conducted a multicentre prospective cohort study including patients discharged from the medical or surgical services of 11 community and academic hospitals in Ontario. Patients included in the study saw at least 2 different physicians during the 6 months after discharge. The primary outcome was whether information from a previous visit with another physician was available at the current visit. We determined the availability of previous information using surveys of or interviews with the physicians seen during current visits. Results: A total of 3250 patients, with a total of 39 469 previous–current visit combinations, met the inclusion criteria. Overall, information about the previous visit was available 22.0% of the time. Information was more likely to be available if the current doctor was a family physician (odds ratio [OR] 1.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.54–1.98) or a physician who had treated the patient before the hospital admission (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.21–1.46). Conversely, information was less likely to be available if the previous doctor was a family physician (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.32–0.44) or a physician who had treated the patient before the admission (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60–0.86). The strongest predictor of information exchange was the current physician having previously received information about the patient from the previous physician (OR 7.72, 95% CI 6.92–8.63). Interpretation: Health care information is often not shared among multiple physicians treating the same patient. This situation would be improved if information from family physicians and patients9 regular physicians was more systematically available to other physicians.

Patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy balance the risks of hemorrhage and thromboembolism. We sought to determine the association between anticoagulation intensity and the risk of hemorrhagic and thromboembolic events. We also sought to determine how under-or overanticoagulation would influence patient outcomes.We reviewed the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL databases to identify studies involving patients taking anticoagulants that reported person-years of observation and the number of hemorrhages or thromboemboli in 3 or more discrete ranges of international normalized ratios. We estimated the overall relative and absolute risks of events specific to anticoagulation intensity.We included 19 studies. The risk of hemorrhage increased significantly at high international normalized ratios. Compared with the therapeutic ratio of 2-3, the relative risk (RR) of hemorrhage (and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were 2.7 (1.8-3.9; p0.01) at a ratio of 3-5 and 21.8 (12.1-39.4; p0.01) at a ratio greater than 5. The risk of thromboemboli increased significantly at ratios less than 2, with a relative risk of 3.5 (95% CI 2.8-4.4; p0.01). The risk of hemorrhagic or thromboembolic events was lower at ratios of 3-5 (RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.6) than at ratios of less than 2 (RR 2.4, 95% CI 1.9-3.1; p = 0.10). We found that a ratio of 2-3 had the lowest absolute risk (AR) of events (AR 4.3%/yr, 95% CI 3.0%-6.3%).The risks of hemorrhage and thromboemboli are minimized at international normalized ratios of 2-3. Ratios that are moderately higher than this therapeutic range appear safe and more effective than subtherapeutic ratios.

Mortality for specific conditions and procedures has figured prominently among outcomes-based performance measures.[1][1]–[3][2] However, in recent years there has been renewed interest in overall hospital mortality, specifically the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR) ([Box 1][3]).[4][4

Patients taking anticoagulants orally over the long term have international normalized ratios (INRs) outside the individual therapeutic range more than one-third of the time. Improved anticoagulation control will reduce hemorrhagic and thromboembolic event rates. To gauge the potential effect of improved anticoagulation control, we undertook to determine the proportion of anticoagulant-associated events that occur when INRs are outside the therapeutic range.We conducted a meta-analysis of all studies that assigned hemorrhagic and thromboembolic events in patients taking anticoagulants to discrete INR ranges. We identified studies using the MEDLINE (1966-2006) and EMBASE (1980-2006) databases. We included studies reported in English if the majority of patients taking oral anticoagulants had an INR range with a lower limit between 1.8 and 2 and an upper limit between 3 and 3.5, and their INR at the time of the hemorrhagic or thromboembolic event was recorded.The final analysis included results from 45 studies (23 that reported both hemorrhages and thromboemboli; 14 that reported hemorrhages only; and 8, thromboemboli only) involving a median of 208 patients (limits of interquartile range [25th-75th percentile] 131-523 subjects; total n = 71 065). Of these studies, 64% were conducted at community practices; the remainder, at anticoagulation clinics. About 69% of the studies were classed as having moderate or high quality. Overall, 44% (95% confidence interval [CI] 39%-49%) of hemorrhages occurred when INRs were above the therapeutic range, and 48% (95% CI 41%-55%) of thromboemboli took place when below it. The mean proportion of events that occurred while the patient's INR was outside the therapeutic range was greater for studies with a short mean follow-up (1 yr). Between-study heterogeneity was significant (p0.001).Improved anticoagulation control could decrease the likelihood of almost half of all anticoagulant-associated adverse events.

Case 1: An 80-year-old woman was admitted to the clinical teaching unit of the local university hospital because of congestive heart failure, which had been precipitated by new-onset rapid atrial fibrillation. She was prescribed warfarin for stroke prophylaxis and received 5 mg on days 2 and 3 of

[The authors respond:] The finding of higher rates of preventable deaths in hospitals with high mortality in the study by Dubois and colleagues[1][1] applied only to the analysis of deaths from pneumonia, for which the physician reviewers exhibited very poor agreement (kappa = 0.11). Moreover, in

The form to which William MacLean refers in his letter was being used during our study,[1][1] and we commonly saw problems with how the forms were completed. For example, it was often difficult to distinguish old from new medications, poor handwriting often made prescriptions illegible, and only