Krishna K Patel1, Nirav Vakharia2, James Pile2, Erik H Howell2,3, Michael B Rothberg2,4. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Ohio, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Mail Code: NA 10, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. patelk11@ccf.org. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Ohio, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Mail Code: NA 10, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. 3. Department of Cardiology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA. 4. Center for Value-Based Care Research, Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rates of preventable admissions will soon be publicly reported and used in calculating performance-based payments. The current method of assessing preventable admissions, the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Preventable Quality Indicators (PQI) rate, is drawn from claims data and was originally designed to assess population-level access to care. OBJECTIVE: To identify the prevalence and causes of preventable admissions by attending physician review and to compare its performance with the PQI tool in identifying preventable admissions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: General medicine service at an academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive inpatient admissions from December 1-15, 2013. MAIN MEASURES: Survey of inpatient attending physicians regarding the preventability of the admissions, primary contributing factors and feasibility of prevention. For the same patients, the PQI tool was applied to determine the claims-derived preventable admission rate. KEY RESULTS: Physicians rated all 322 admissions and classified 122 (38 %) as preventable, of which 31 (25 %) were readmissions. Readmissions were more likely to be rated preventable than other admissions (49 % vs. 35 %, p = 0.04). Application of the AHRQ PQI methodology identified 75 (23 %) preventable admissions. Thirty-one admissions (10 %) were classified as preventable by both methods, and the majority of admissions considered preventable by the AHRQ PQI method (44/78) were not considered preventable by physician assessment (K = 0.04). Of the preventable admissions, physicians assigned patient factors in 54 (44 %), clinician factors in 36 (30 %) and system factors in 32 (26 %). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of admissions to a general medicine service appeared preventable, but AHRQ's PQI tool was unable to identify these admissions. Before initiation of the PQI rate for use in pay-for-performance programs, further study is warranted.
BACKGROUND: Rates of preventable admissions will soon be publicly reported and used in calculating performance-based payments. The current method of assessing preventable admissions, the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Preventable Quality Indicators (PQI) rate, is drawn from claims data and was originally designed to assess population-level access to care. OBJECTIVE: To identify the prevalence and causes of preventable admissions by attending physician review and to compare its performance with the PQI tool in identifying preventable admissions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: General medicine service at an academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive inpatient admissions from December 1-15, 2013. MAIN MEASURES: Survey of inpatient attending physicians regarding the preventability of the admissions, primary contributing factors and feasibility of prevention. For the same patients, the PQI tool was applied to determine the claims-derived preventable admission rate. KEY RESULTS: Physicians rated all 322 admissions and classified 122 (38 %) as preventable, of which 31 (25 %) were readmissions. Readmissions were more likely to be rated preventable than other admissions (49 % vs. 35 %, p = 0.04). Application of the AHRQ PQI methodology identified 75 (23 %) preventable admissions. Thirty-one admissions (10 %) were classified as preventable by both methods, and the majority of admissions considered preventable by the AHRQ PQI method (44/78) were not considered preventable by physician assessment (K = 0.04). Of the preventable admissions, physicians assigned patient factors in 54 (44 %), clinician factors in 36 (30 %) and system factors in 32 (26 %). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of admissions to a general medicine service appeared preventable, but AHRQ's PQI tool was unable to identify these admissions. Before initiation of the PQI rate for use in pay-for-performance programs, further study is warranted.
Authors: Sheryl Davies; Kathryn M McDonald; Eric Schmidt; Ellen Schultz; Jeffrey Geppert; Patrick S Romano Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: E Z Oddone; M Weinberger; M Horner; C Mengel; F Goldstein; P Ginier; D Smith; J Huey; N J Farber; D A Asch; L Loo; E Mack; A G Hurder; W Henderson; J R Feussner Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 1996-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: A B Bindman; K Grumbach; D Osmond; M Komaromy; K Vranizan; N Lurie; J Billings; A Stewart Journal: JAMA Date: 1995-07-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Halima Amjad; Donald Carmichael; Andrea M Austin; Chiang-Hua Chang; Julie P W Bynum Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Lisa M Daniels; Atsushi Sorita; Deanne T Kashiwagi; Masashi Okubo; Evan Small; Eric C Polley; Adam P Sawatsky Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-01-16 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Hugo Teixeira; Alberto Freitas; António Sarmento; Paulo Nossa; Hernâni Gonçalves; Maria de Fátima Pina Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Evelyn T Chang; Steven M Asch; Jessica Eng; Frances Gutierrez; Angela Denietolis; David Atkins Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Andre Ramalho; Mariana Lobo; Lia Duarte; Julio Souza; Paulo Santos; Alberto Freitas Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 3.390