Andrew D Auerbach1, Sunil Kripalani2, Eduard E Vasilevskis2, Neil Sehgal1, Peter K Lindenauer3, Joshua P Metlay4, Grant Fletcher5, Gregory W Ruhnke6, Scott A Flanders7, Christopher Kim7, Mark V Williams8, Larissa Thomas9, Vernon Giang10, Shoshana J Herzig11, Kanan Patel12, W John Boscardin13, Edmondo J Robinson14, Jeffrey L Schnipper15. 1. Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. 2. Section of Hospital Medicine at Vanderbilt, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee3Center for Clinical Quality and Implementation Research, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. 3. Center for Quality of Care Research, Baystate Medical Center, Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. 5. Division of General Internal Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, Washington. 6. Section of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 7. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 8. Center for Health Services Research, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Louisville. 9. Division of General Internal Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, California. 10. Department of Medicine, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco. 11. Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 12. Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. 13. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco15Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco. 14. Value Institute and Department of Medicine, Christiana Care Health System, Wilmington, Delaware. 15. Hospital Medicine Service, Division of General Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Readmission penalties have catalyzed efforts to improve care transitions, but few programs have incorporated viewpoints of patients and health care professionals to determine readmission preventability or to prioritize opportunities for care improvement. OBJECTIVES: To determine preventability of readmissions and to use these estimates to prioritize areas for improvement. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An observational study was conducted of 1000 general medicine patients readmitted within 30 days of discharge to 12 US academic medical centers between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2013. We surveyed patients and physicians, reviewed documentation, and performed 2-physician case review to determine preventability of and factors contributing to readmission. We used bivariable statistics to compare preventable and nonpreventable readmissions, multivariable models to identify factors associated with potential preventability, and baseline risk factor prevalence and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) to determine the proportion of readmissions affected by individual risk factors. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: Likelihood that a readmission could have been prevented. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 1000 patients (median age was 55 years). Of these, 269 (26.9%) were considered potentially preventable. In multivariable models, factors most strongly associated with potential preventability included emergency department decision making regarding the readmission (aOR, 9.13; 95% CI, 5.23-15.95), failure to relay important information to outpatient health care professionals (aOR, 4.19; 95% CI, 2.17-8.09), discharge of patients too soon (aOR, 3.88; 95% CI, 2.44-6.17), and lack of discussions about care goals among patients with serious illnesses (aOR, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.39-10.64). The most common factors associated with potentially preventable readmissions included emergency department decision making (affecting 9.0%; 95% CI, 7.1%-10.3%), inability to keep appointments after discharge (affecting 8.3%; 95% CI, 4.1%-12.0%), premature discharge from the hospital (affecting 8.7%; 95% CI, 5.8%-11.3%), and patient lack of awareness of whom to contact after discharge (affecting 6.2%; 95% CI, 3.5%-8.7%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Approximately one-quarter of readmissions are potentially preventable when assessed using multiple perspectives. High-priority areas for improvement efforts include improved communication among health care teams and between health care professionals and patients, greater attention to patients' readiness for discharge, enhanced disease monitoring, and better support for patient self-management.
IMPORTANCE: Readmission penalties have catalyzed efforts to improve care transitions, but few programs have incorporated viewpoints of patients and health care professionals to determine readmission preventability or to prioritize opportunities for care improvement. OBJECTIVES: To determine preventability of readmissions and to use these estimates to prioritize areas for improvement. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An observational study was conducted of 1000 general medicine patients readmitted within 30 days of discharge to 12 US academic medical centers between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2013. We surveyed patients and physicians, reviewed documentation, and performed 2-physician case review to determine preventability of and factors contributing to readmission. We used bivariable statistics to compare preventable and nonpreventable readmissions, multivariable models to identify factors associated with potential preventability, and baseline risk factor prevalence and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) to determine the proportion of readmissions affected by individual risk factors. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: Likelihood that a readmission could have been prevented. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 1000 patients (median age was 55 years). Of these, 269 (26.9%) were considered potentially preventable. In multivariable models, factors most strongly associated with potential preventability included emergency department decision making regarding the readmission (aOR, 9.13; 95% CI, 5.23-15.95), failure to relay important information to outpatient health care professionals (aOR, 4.19; 95% CI, 2.17-8.09), discharge of patients too soon (aOR, 3.88; 95% CI, 2.44-6.17), and lack of discussions about care goals among patients with serious illnesses (aOR, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.39-10.64). The most common factors associated with potentially preventable readmissions included emergency department decision making (affecting 9.0%; 95% CI, 7.1%-10.3%), inability to keep appointments after discharge (affecting 8.3%; 95% CI, 4.1%-12.0%), premature discharge from the hospital (affecting 8.7%; 95% CI, 5.8%-11.3%), and patient lack of awareness of whom to contact after discharge (affecting 6.2%; 95% CI, 3.5%-8.7%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Approximately one-quarter of readmissions are potentially preventable when assessed using multiple perspectives. High-priority areas for improvement efforts include improved communication among health care teams and between health care professionals and patients, greater attention to patients' readiness for discharge, enhanced disease monitoring, and better support for patient self-management.
Authors: Jeffrey L Schnipper; Christianne L Roumie; Courtney Cawthon; Alexandra Businger; Anuj K Dalal; Ileko Mugalla; Svetlana Eden; Terry A Jacobson; Kimberly J Rask; Viola Vaccarino; Tejal K Gandhi; David W Bates; Daniel C Johnson; Stephanie Labonville; David Gregory; Sunil Kripalani Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2010-03
Authors: Elizabeth H Bradley; Leslie A Curry; Erica S Spatz; Jeph Herrin; Emily J Cherlin; Jeptha P Curtis; Jennifer W Thompson; Henry H Ting; Yongfei Wang; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 25.391
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: L Elizabeth Goldman; Urmimala Sarkar; Eric Kessell; David Guzman; Michelle Schneidermann; Edgar Pierluissi; Barbara Walter; Eric Vittinghoff; Jeff Critchfield; Margot Kushel Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-10-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Amanda H Salanitro; Sunil Kripalani; Joanne Resnic; Stephanie K Mueller; Tosha B Wetterneck; Katherine Taylor Haynes; Jason Stein; Peter J Kaboli; Stephanie Labonville; Edward Etchells; Daniel J Cobaugh; David Hanson; Jeffrey L Greenwald; Mark V Williams; Jeffrey L Schnipper Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-06-25 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Jennifer L Wolff; Lauren H Nicholas; Amber Willink; John Mulcahy; Karen Davis; Judith D Kasper Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2019-05-28 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Pankaj B Patel; David R Vinson; Marla N Gardner; David A Wulf; Patricia Kipnis; Vincent Liu; Gabriel J Escobar Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Erik H Hoyer; Daniel J Brotman; Ariella Apfel; Curtis Leung; Romsai T Boonyasai; Melissa Richardson; Diane Lepley; Amy Deutschendorf Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jacques D Donzé; Mark V Williams; Edmondo J Robinson; Eyal Zimlichman; Drahomir Aujesky; Eduard E Vasilevskis; Sunil Kripalani; Joshua P Metlay; Tamara Wallington; Grant S Fletcher; Andrew D Auerbach; Jeffrey L Schnipper Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Robert E Burke; Jeffrey L Schnipper; Mark V Williams; Edmondo J Robinson; Eduard E Vasilevskis; Sunil Kripalani; Joshua P Metlay; Grant S Fletcher; Andrew D Auerbach; Jacques D Donzé Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Eric Young; Chad Stickrath; Monica C McNulty; Aaron J Calderon; Elizabeth Chapman; Jed D Gonzalo; Ethan F Kuperman; Max Lopez; Christopher J Smith; Joseph R Sweigart; Cecelia N Theobald; Robert E Burke Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 5.128