BACKGROUND: Hospital readmissions are increasingly used to pay hospitals differently. We hypothesized that readmission rates, readmissions related to index admission, and potentially unnecessary readmissions vary by data collection method for surgical patients. STUDY DESIGN: Using 3 different data collection methods, we compared 30-day unplanned readmission rates and potentially unnecessary readmissions among colorectal surgery patients at a single institution between July 2009 and November 2011. We compared the NSQIP clinical reviewer method, the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) administrative billing data method, and physician medical record review. RESULTS: Seven hundred and thirty-five colorectal surgery patients were identified with readmission rates as follows: NSQIP 14.6% (107 of 735) vs UHC 17.6% (129 of 735). The NSQIP method identified 9 readmissions not found in billing records because the readmission occurred at another hospital (n = 7) or due to a discrepancy in definition (n = 2). The UHC method identified 31 readmissions not identified by NSQIP because of a broader readmission definition (n = 20) or were missed by reviewers (n = 11). The NSQIP method identified 72% of readmissions as related to index admission and physician chart review identified 83%. The UHC method identified 51% of readmissions as related to index admission and physician chart review identified 86%. Sixty-six of 129 UHC readmissions (51%) were deemed potentially preventable; based on physician chart review, 112 of 129 readmissions (87%) were deemed clinically necessary at the time of presentation. Most readmissions were due to surgical site infections (46 of 129 [36%]) and dehydration (30 of 129 [23%]). With improved patient-care efforts, 41 of 129 (31.8%) complications might not have required readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Readmission rates and unnecessary readmissions vary depending on data collection methodology. Reimbursements based on readmission should use standardized and fair methods to minimize perverse incentives that penalize hospitals for appropriate care of high-risk surgical patients.
BACKGROUND: Hospital readmissions are increasingly used to pay hospitals differently. We hypothesized that readmission rates, readmissions related to index admission, and potentially unnecessary readmissions vary by data collection method for surgical patients. STUDY DESIGN: Using 3 different data collection methods, we compared 30-day unplanned readmission rates and potentially unnecessary readmissions among colorectal surgery patients at a single institution between July 2009 and November 2011. We compared the NSQIP clinical reviewer method, the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) administrative billing data method, and physician medical record review. RESULTS: Seven hundred and thirty-five colorectal surgery patients were identified with readmission rates as follows: NSQIP 14.6% (107 of 735) vs UHC 17.6% (129 of 735). The NSQIP method identified 9 readmissions not found in billing records because the readmission occurred at another hospital (n = 7) or due to a discrepancy in definition (n = 2). The UHC method identified 31 readmissions not identified by NSQIP because of a broader readmission definition (n = 20) or were missed by reviewers (n = 11). The NSQIP method identified 72% of readmissions as related to index admission and physician chart review identified 83%. The UHC method identified 51% of readmissions as related to index admission and physician chart review identified 86%. Sixty-six of 129 UHC readmissions (51%) were deemed potentially preventable; based on physician chart review, 112 of 129 readmissions (87%) were deemed clinically necessary at the time of presentation. Most readmissions were due to surgical site infections (46 of 129 [36%]) and dehydration (30 of 129 [23%]). With improved patient-care efforts, 41 of 129 (31.8%) complications might not have required readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Readmission rates and unnecessary readmissions vary depending on data collection methodology. Reimbursements based on readmission should use standardized and fair methods to minimize perverse incentives that penalize hospitals for appropriate care of high-risk surgical patients.
Authors: Jennifer L Dixon; Harry T Papaconstantinou; Bonnie Hodges; Robyn S Korsmo; Dan Jupiter; Jay Shake; Basar Sareyyupoglu; Philip A Rascoe; Scott I Reznik Journal: Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) Date: 2015-01
Authors: Douglas S Weinberg; Matthew J Kraay; Steven J Fitzgerald; Vasu Sidagam; Glenn D Wera Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2016-11-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Laura Z Hyde; Ahmed M Al-Mazrou; Ben A Kuritzkes; Kunal Suradkar; Neda Valizadeh; Ravi P Kiran Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Alex W Lois; Matthew J Frelich; Natasha A Sahr; Samuel F Hohmann; Tao Wang; Jon C Gould Journal: Surgery Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Hillary J Mull; Laura A Graham; Melanie S Morris; Amy K Rosen; Joshua S Richman; Jeffery Whittle; Edith Burns; Todd H Wagner; Laurel A Copeland; Tyler Wahl; Caroline Jones; Robert H Hollis; Kamal M F Itani; Mary T Hawn Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Sara L Toomey; Alon Peltz; Samuel Loren; Michaela Tracy; Kathryn Williams; Linda Pengeroth; Allison Ste Marie; Sarah Onorato; Mark A Schuster Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Kristin N Kelly; James C Iannuzzi; Aaron S Rickles; John R T Monson; Fergal J Fleming Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2013-09-25 Impact factor: 3.452