Literature DB >> 23048081

Comparing methods to calculate hospital-specific rates of early death or urgent readmission.

Carl van Walraven1, Jenna Wong, Steven Hawken, Alan J Forster.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23048081      PMCID: PMC3478375          DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.120801

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  6 in total

1.  A meta-analysis of hospital 30-day avoidable readmission rates.

Authors:  Carl van Walraven; Alison Jennings; Alan J Forster
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 2.431

2.  Incidence of potentially avoidable urgent readmissions and their relation to all-cause urgent readmissions.

Authors:  Carl van Walraven; Alison Jennings; Monica Taljaard; Irfan Dhalla; Shane English; Sunita Mulpuru; Saul Blecker; Alan J Forster
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2011-08-22       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

Authors:  M E Charlson; P Pompei; K L Ales; C R MacKenzie
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

Review 4.  Statistical methods in cancer research. Volume II--The design and analysis of cohort studies.

Authors:  N E Breslow; N E Day
Journal:  IARC Sci Publ       Date:  1987

5.  LACE+ index: extension of a validated index to predict early death or urgent readmission after hospital discharge using administrative data.

Authors:  Carl van Walraven; Jenna Wong; Alan J Forster
Journal:  Open Med       Date:  2012-07-19

6.  Derivation and validation of a diagnostic score based on case-mix groups to predict 30-day death or urgent readmission.

Authors:  Carl van Walraven; Jenna Wong; Alan J Forster
Journal:  Open Med       Date:  2012-07-19
  6 in total
  6 in total

1.  Physician experience and outcomes among patients admitted to general internal medicine teaching wards.

Authors:  Finlay A McAlister; Erik Youngson; Jeffrey A Bakal; Jayna Holroyd-Leduc; Narmin Kassam
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2015-08-17       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Assessing preventability in the quest to reduce hospital readmissions.

Authors:  Julia G Lavenberg; Brian Leas; Craig A Umscheid; Kendal Williams; David R Goldmann; Sunil Kripalani
Journal:  J Hosp Med       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 2.960

Review 3.  Is the readmission rate a valid quality indicator? A review of the evidence.

Authors:  Claudia Fischer; Hester F Lingsma; Perla J Marang-van de Mheen; Dionne S Kringos; Niek S Klazinga; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-11-07       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Study of Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Transplantation: A Prospective, Multicenter Study to Determine the Incidence of Cardiovascular Events in Renal Transplant Recipients in Ontario, Canada.

Authors:  Christine M Ribic; David Holland; John Howell; Anthony Jevnikar; S Joseph Kim; Greg Knoll; Brenda Lee; Jeffrey Zaltzman; Azim S Gangji
Journal:  Can J Kidney Health Dis       Date:  2017-06-14

5.  LACE Score-Based Risk Management Tool for Long-Term Home Care Patients: A Proof-of-Concept Study in Taiwan.

Authors:  Mei-Chin Su; Yu-Chun Chen; Mei-Shu Huang; Yen-Hsi Lin; Li-Hwa Lin; Hsiao-Ting Chang; Tzeng-Ji Chen
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  Predicting Hospital Readmission for Campylobacteriosis from Electronic Health Records: A Machine Learning and Text Mining Perspective.

Authors:  Shang-Ming Zhou; Ronan A Lyons; Muhammad A Rahman; Alexander Holborow; Sinead Brophy
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-01-10
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.