Search

Background: Hospital performance on the 30-day hospital-wide readmission (HWR) metric as calculated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is currently reported as a quality measure. Focusing on patient-level factors may provide an incomplete picture of readmission risk at the hospital level to explain variations in hospital readmission rates.Objective: To evaluate and quantify hospital-level characteristics that track with hospital performance on the current HWR metric.Design: Retrospective cohort study.Setting/patients: A total of 4785 US hospitals.Metrics: We linked publically available data on individual hospitals published by CMS on patient-level adjusted 30-day HWR rates from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2014, to the 2014 American Hospital Association annual survey. Primary outcome was performance in the worst CMS-calculated HWR quartile. Primary hospital-level exposure variables were defined as: size (total number of beds), safety net status (top quartile of disproportionate share), academic status [member of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)], National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCI-CCC) status, and hospital services offered (e.g., transplant, hospice, emergency department). Multilevel regression was used to evaluate the association between 30-day HWR and the hospital-level factors.Results: Hospital-level characteristics significantly associated with performing in the worst CMS-calculated HWR quartile included: safety net status [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.99, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.61-2.45, p < 0.001], large size (> 400 beds, aOR 1.42, 95% CI 1.07-1.90, p = 0.016), AAMC alone status (aOR 1.95, 95% CI 1.35-2.83, p < 0.001), and AAMC plus NCI-CCC status (aOR 5.16, 95% CI 2.58-10.31, p < 0.001). Hospitals with more critical care beds (aOR 1.26, 95% CI 1.02-1.56, p = 0.033), those with transplant services (aOR 2.80, 95% CI 1.48-5.31,p = 0.001), and those with emergency room services (aOR 3.37, 95% CI 1.12-10.15, p = 0.031) demonstrated significantly worse HWR performance. Hospice service (aOR 0.64, 95% CI 0.50-0.82, p < 0.001) and having a higher proportion of total discharges being surgical cases (aOR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50-0.76, p < 0.001) were associated with better performance.Limitation: The study approach was not intended to be an alternate readmission metric to compete with the existing CMS metric, which would require a re-examination of patient-level data combined with hospital-level data.Conclusion: A number of hospital-level characteristics (such as academic tertiary care center status) were significantly associated with worse performance on the CMS-calculated HWR metric, which may have important health policy implications. Until the reasons for readmission variability can be addressed, reporting the current HWR metric as an indicator of hospital quality should be reevaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a profound effect on the provision of medical care. As the curve progresses and patients are discharged, the rehabilitation wave brings a high number of postacute COVID-19 patients suffering from physical, mental, and cognitive impairments threatening their return to normal life. The complexity and severity of disease in patients recovering from severe COVID-19 infection require an approach that is implemented as early in the recovery phase as possible, in a concerted and systematic way. To address the rehabilitation wave, we describe a spectrum of interventions that start in the intensive care unit and continue through all the appropriate levels of care. This approach requires organized rehabilitation teams including physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, rehabilitation psychologists or neuropsychologists, and physiatrists collaborating with acute medical teams. Here, we also discuss administrative factors that influence the provision of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The services that can be provided are described in detail to allow the reader to understand what services may be appropriate locally. We have been learning and adapting real time during this crisis and hope that sharing our experience facilitates the work of others as the pandemic evolves. It is our goal to help reduce the potentially long-lasting challenges faced by COVID-19 survivors., (Copyright © 2020 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Current hospital readmission measures are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Five-Star Quality Rating System but are inadequate for reporting hospital quality. We review potential biases in the readmission measures and offer policy recommendations to address these biases. Hospital readmission rates are influenced by multiple sources of variation (eg, mix of patients served, bias in the performance measure); true differences in quality of care are often a much smaller source of this variation. Thus, variation from caring for large proportions of socioeconomically disadvantaged or tertiary-care patients will bias a hospital's ratings. Ratings aside, readmission measures may indirectly harm patients because low readmission rates do not correlate with reduced mortality, yet the Five-Star Quality Rating System weighs readmission equally with mortality. We propose that hospital quality rankings not use readmission measures as currently constructed., (© 2017 Society of Hospital Medicine.)