BACKGROUND: There has been little research to examine post-discharge adverse events (AEs) in rural patients discharged from community hospitals. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the rate of post-discharge AEs, classify the types of post-discharge AEs, and identify risk factors for post-discharge AEs in urban and rural patients. DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study of patients at risk for post-discharge adverse events from December 2011 through October 2012. PATIENTS: Six hundred and eighty-four patients who were under the care of hospitalist physicians and were being discharged home, spoke English, and could be contacted after discharge, were admitted to the medical service. Patients were stratified as urban/rural using zip code of residence. Rural patients were oversampled to ensure equal enrollment of urban and rural patients. MAIN MEASURES: The main outcome of the study was post-discharge AEs based on structured telephone interviews, health record review, and adjudication by two blinded, trained physicians using a previously established methodology. RESULTS: Over 28% of 684 patients experienced post-discharge AEs, most of which were either preventable or ameliorable. There was no difference in the incidence of post-discharge AEs in urban versus rural patients (ARR 1.04 95% CI 0.82-1.32 ), but post-discharge AEs were associated with hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and number of secondary discharge diagnoses only in urban patients. CONCLUSIONS: Post-discharge AEs were common in both urban and rural patients and many were preventable or ameliorable. Potentially different risk factors for AEs in urban versus rural patients suggests the need for further research into the underlying causes. Different interventions may be required in urban versus rural patients to improve patient safety during transitions in care.
BACKGROUND: There has been little research to examine post-discharge adverse events (AEs) in rural patients discharged from community hospitals. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the rate of post-discharge AEs, classify the types of post-discharge AEs, and identify risk factors for post-discharge AEs in urban and rural patients. DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study of patients at risk for post-discharge adverse events from December 2011 through October 2012. PATIENTS: Six hundred and eighty-four patients who were under the care of hospitalist physicians and were being discharged home, spoke English, and could be contacted after discharge, were admitted to the medical service. Patients were stratified as urban/rural using zip code of residence. Rural patients were oversampled to ensure equal enrollment of urban and rural patients. MAIN MEASURES: The main outcome of the study was post-discharge AEs based on structured telephone interviews, health record review, and adjudication by two blinded, trained physicians using a previously established methodology. RESULTS: Over 28% of 684 patients experienced post-discharge AEs, most of which were either preventable or ameliorable. There was no difference in the incidence of post-discharge AEs in urban versus ruralpatients (ARR 1.04 95% CI 0.82-1.32 ), but post-discharge AEs were associated with hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and number of secondary discharge diagnoses only in urban patients. CONCLUSIONS: Post-discharge AEs were common in both urban and rural patients and many were preventable or ameliorable. Potentially different risk factors for AEs in urban versus ruralpatients suggests the need for further research into the underlying causes. Different interventions may be required in urban versus ruralpatients to improve patient safety during transitions in care.
Authors: L L Leape; T A Brennan; N Laird; A G Lawthers; A R Localio; B A Barnes; L Hebert; J P Newhouse; P C Weiler; H Hiatt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-02-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: D W Bates; D J Cullen; N Laird; L A Petersen; S D Small; D Servi; G Laffel; B J Sweitzer; B F Shea; R Hallisey Journal: JAMA Date: 1995-07-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: C A Naranjo; U Busto; E M Sellers; P Sandor; I Ruiz; E A Roberts; E Janecek; C Domecq; D J Greenblatt Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 1981-08 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: E J Thomas; D M Studdert; H R Burstin; E J Orav; T Zeena; E J Williams; K M Howard; P C Weiler; T A Brennan Journal: Med Care Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jeffrey L Schnipper; Jennifer L Kirwin; Michael C Cotugno; Stephanie A Wahlstrom; Brandon A Brown; Emily Tarvin; Allen Kachalia; Mark Horng; Christopher L Roy; Sylvia C McKean; David W Bates Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006-03-13
Authors: Alan J Forster; Heather D Clark; Alex Menard; Natalie Dupuis; Robert Chernish; Natasha Chandok; Asmat Khan; Carl van Walraven Journal: CMAJ Date: 2004-02-03 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Bhushan R Deshpande; Ellen P McCarthy; Yoojin Jung; Timothy S Anderson; Shoshana J Herzig Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Anuj K Dalal; Nicholas Piniella; Theresa E Fuller; Denise Pong; Michael Pardo; Nathaniel Bessa; Catherine Yoon; Stuart Lipsitz; Jeffrey L Schnipper Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Joshua M Pevnick; Michelle S Keller; Korey A Kennelty; Teryl K Nuckols; EunJi Michelle Ko; Kallie Amer; Laura Anderson; Christine Armbruster; Nicole Conti; John Fanikos; James Guan; Emmanuel Knight; Donna W Leang; Ruby Llamas-Sandoval; Lina Matta; Dylan Moriarty; Logan T Murry; Anne Marie Muske; An T Nguyen; Emily Phung; Olga Rosen; Sonja L Rosen; Audrienne Salandanan; Rita Shane; Jeffrey L Schnipper Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 2.261
Authors: Paulina Hydzik; Ewelina Kolarczyk; Wojciech Kustrzycki; Grzegorz Kubielas; Marta Kałużna-Oleksy; Remigiusz Szczepanowski; Bartosz Uchmanowicz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-28 Impact factor: 3.390