BACKGROUND: Patient activation is linked to better health outcomes and lower rates of health service utilization. The role of patient activation in the rate of hospital readmission within 30 days of hospital discharge has not been examined. METHODS: A secondary analysis using data from the Project RED-LIT randomized controlled trial conducted at an urban safety net hospital. Data from 695 English-speaking general medical inpatient subjects were analyzed. We used an adapted, eight-item version of the validated Patient Activation Measure (PAM). Total scores were categorized, according to standardized methods, as one of four PAM levels of activation: Level 1 (lowest activation) through Level 4 (highest activation). The primary outcome measure was total 30-day post-discharge hospital utilization, defined as total emergency department (ED) visits plus hospital readmissions including observation stays. Poisson regression was used to control for confounding. RESULTS: Of the 695 subjects, 67 (9.6 %) were PAM Level 1, 123 (17.7 %) were Level 2, 193 (27.8 %) were Level 3, and 312 (44.9 %) were Level 4. Compared with highly activated patients (PAM Level 4), a higher rate of 30-day post-discharge hospital utilization was observed for patients at lower levels of activation (PAM Level 1, incident rate ratio [IRR] 1.75, 95 % CI,1.18 to 2.60) and (PAM Level 2, IRR 1.50, 95 % CI 1.06 to 2.13). The rate of returning to the hospital among patients at PAM Level 3 was not statistically different than patients with PAM Level 4 (IRR 1.30, 95 % CI, 0.94 to 1.80). The rate ratio for PAM Level 1 was also higher compared with Level 4 for ED use alone (1.68(1.07 to 2.63)) and for hospital readmissions alone (1.93 [1.22 to 3.06]). CONCLUSION:Hospitalized adult medical patients in an urban academic safety net hospital with lower levels of Patient Activation had a higher rate of post-discharge 30-day hospital utilization.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Patient activation is linked to better health outcomes and lower rates of health service utilization. The role of patient activation in the rate of hospital readmission within 30 days of hospital discharge has not been examined. METHODS: A secondary analysis using data from the Project RED-LIT randomized controlled trial conducted at an urban safety net hospital. Data from 695 English-speaking general medical inpatient subjects were analyzed. We used an adapted, eight-item version of the validated Patient Activation Measure (PAM). Total scores were categorized, according to standardized methods, as one of four PAM levels of activation: Level 1 (lowest activation) through Level 4 (highest activation). The primary outcome measure was total 30-day post-discharge hospital utilization, defined as total emergency department (ED) visits plus hospital readmissions including observation stays. Poisson regression was used to control for confounding. RESULTS: Of the 695 subjects, 67 (9.6 %) were PAM Level 1, 123 (17.7 %) were Level 2, 193 (27.8 %) were Level 3, and 312 (44.9 %) were Level 4. Compared with highly activated patients (PAM Level 4), a higher rate of 30-day post-discharge hospital utilization was observed for patients at lower levels of activation (PAM Level 1, incident rate ratio [IRR] 1.75, 95 % CI,1.18 to 2.60) and (PAM Level 2, IRR 1.50, 95 % CI 1.06 to 2.13). The rate of returning to the hospital among patients at PAM Level 3 was not statistically different than patients with PAM Level 4 (IRR 1.30, 95 % CI, 0.94 to 1.80). The rate ratio for PAM Level 1 was also higher compared with Level 4 for ED use alone (1.68(1.07 to 2.63)) and for hospital readmissions alone (1.93 [1.22 to 3.06]). CONCLUSION: Hospitalized adult medical patients in an urban academic safety net hospital with lower levels of Patient Activation had a higher rate of post-discharge 30-day hospital utilization.
Authors: Suzanne E Mitchell; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Shaula R Forsythe; Veerappa K Chetty; Julie K O'Donnell; Jeffrey L Greenwald; Larry Culpepper; Brian W Jack Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Russell E Glasgow; Edward H Wagner; Judith Schaefer; Lisa D Mahoney; Robert J Reid; Sarah M Greene Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Shaula Woz; Suzanne Mitchell; Caroline Hesko; Michael Paasche-Orlow; Jeffrey Greenwald; V K Chetty; Julie O'Donnell; Brian Jack Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2012-04-18 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Ruth M Masterson Creber; Lisa V Grossman; Beatriz Ryan; Min Qian; Fernanda C G Polubriaginof; Susan Restaino; Suzanne Bakken; George Hripcsak; David K Vawdrey Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Pamela N Peterson; Larry A Allen; Paul A Heidenreich; Nancy M Albert; Ileana L Piña Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Christopher Sciamanna; Noel H Ballentine; Melissa Bopp; Jennifer S Brach; Vernon M Chinchilli; Joseph T Ciccolo; Molly B Conroy; Abigail Fisher; Edward J Fox; Susan L Greenspan; M Jan De Beur Suzanne; Kalen Kearcher; Jennifer L Kraschnewski; Kathleen M McTigue; Edward McAuley; Natalia E Morone; Anuradha Paranjape; Sol Rodriguez-Colon; Andrew Rosenzweig; Joshua M Smyth; Kerry J Stewart; Heather L Stuckey Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Jia Loon Chong; Lian Leng Low; Darren Yak Leong Chan; Yuzeng Shen; Thiri Naing Thin; Marcus Eng Hock Ong; David Bruce Matchar Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 1.858
Authors: Nwamaka D Eneanya; Michael Winter; Howard Cabral; Katherine Waite; Lori Henault; Timothy Bickmore; Amresh Hanchate; Michael Wolf; Michael K Paasche-Orlow Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2016
Authors: P Cram; F D Wolinsky; Y Lou; S W Edmonds; S F Hall; D W Roblin; N C Wright; M P Jones; K G Saag Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 4.507