Meera R Chappidi1, Max Kates2, C J Stimson2, Trinity J Bivalacqua2, Phillip M Pierorazio2. 1. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: mchappi1@jhmi.edu. 2. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We quantified the underestimation of hospital readmission rates that can occur with institutional databases and the incidence of care fragmentation among patients undergoing urological oncology procedures in a nationally representative database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 2013 Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried for patients undergoing prostatectomy, cystectomy, nephroureterectomy, nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for urological malignancies. Nationally representative 30 and 90-day readmission and care fragmentation rates were calculated for all procedures. Readmission rates with and without nonindex hospital readmissions were compared with Pearson's chi-square test. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of care fragmentation at 90-day followup. RESULTS: For all surgical procedures readmission rates were consistently underestimated by 17% to 29% at 90-day followup. The rates of care fragmentation among readmitted patients were similar for all procedures, ranging from 24% to 34% at 90-day followup. Overall 1 in 4 readmitted patients would not be captured in institutional databases and 1 in 3 readmitted patients experienced care fragmentation. Multivariable models did not identify a predictor of care fragmentation that was consistent across all procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of underestimation of readmission rates across all urological oncology procedures highlights the importance of linking institutional and payer claims databases to provide more accurate estimates of perioperative outcomes and health care utilization. The high rate of care fragmentation across all procedures emphasizes the need for future efforts to understand the clinical relevance of care fragmentation in patients with urological malignancies, and to identify patients at risk along with potentially modifiable risk factors for care fragmentation. Copyright Â
PURPOSE: We quantified the underestimation of hospital readmission rates that can occur with institutional databases and the incidence of care fragmentation among patients undergoing urological oncology procedures in a nationally representative database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 2013 Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried for patients undergoing prostatectomy, cystectomy, nephroureterectomy, nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for urological malignancies. Nationally representative 30 and 90-day readmission and care fragmentation rates were calculated for all procedures. Readmission rates with and without nonindex hospital readmissions were compared with Pearson's chi-square test. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of care fragmentation at 90-day followup. RESULTS: For all surgical procedures readmission rates were consistently underestimated by 17% to 29% at 90-day followup. The rates of care fragmentation among readmitted patients were similar for all procedures, ranging from 24% to 34% at 90-day followup. Overall 1 in 4 readmitted patients would not be captured in institutional databases and 1 in 3 readmitted patients experienced care fragmentation. Multivariable models did not identify a predictor of care fragmentation that was consistent across all procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of underestimation of readmission rates across all urological oncology procedures highlights the importance of linking institutional and payer claims databases to provide more accurate estimates of perioperative outcomes and health care utilization. The high rate of care fragmentation across all procedures emphasizes the need for future efforts to understand the clinical relevance of care fragmentation in patients with urological malignancies, and to identify patients at risk along with potentially modifiable risk factors for care fragmentation. Copyright Â
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Andrea E Siewers; Emily V A Finlayson; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Ida Batista; H Gilbert Welch; David E Wennberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Khurram Nasir; Zhenqiu Lin; Hector Bueno; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Elizabeth E Drye; Patricia S Keenan; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Med Care Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Chaoyi Zheng; Elizabeth B Habermann; Nawar M Shara; Russell C Langan; Young Hong; Lynt B Johnson; Waddah B Al-Refaie Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2016-02-05 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Marianne Schmid; H Abraham Chiang; Akshay Sood; Logan Campbell; Felix K-H Chun; Deepansh Dalela; James Okwara; Jesse D Sammon; Adam S Kibel; Mani Menon; Margit Fisch; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Benjamin S Brooke; Philip P Goodney; Larry W Kraiss; Daniel J Gottlieb; Matthew H Samore; Samuel R G Finlayson Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-06-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Yuhree Kim; Faiz Gani; Donald J Lucas; Aslam Ejaz; Gaya Spolverato; Joseph K Canner; Eric B Schneider; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Caitlin W Hicks; John L Cameron; Vicente Valero; Frederic E Eckhauser; Kenzo Hirose; Martin A Makary; Timothy M Pawlik; Nita Ahuja; Matthew J Weiss; Christopher L Wolfgang Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Karyn B Stitzenberg; Elin R Sigurdson; Brian L Egleston; Russell B Starkey; Neal J Meropol Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Austin M Tang; Joshua Bakhsheshian; Li Ding; Casey A Jarvis; Edith Yuan; Ben Strickland; Steven L Giannotta; Arun Amar; Frank J Attenello; William J Mack Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2019-07-05 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Meera R Chappidi; Max Kates; C J Stimson; Michael H Johnson; Phillip M Pierorazio; Trinity J Bivalacqua Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 7.450