Teryl K Nuckols1, Emmett Keeler2, Sally Morton3, Laura Anderson4, Brian J Doyle5, Joshua Pevnick6, Marika Booth2, Roberta Shanman2, Aziza Arifkhanova2, Paul Shekelle7. 1. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California2RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California. 2. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California. 3. College of Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg. 4. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California4Jonathan and Karin Fielding School of Public Health, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles. 5. Jonathan and Karin Fielding School of Public Health, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles5VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California. 6. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 7. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California5VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
Importance: Quality improvement (QI) interventions can reduce hospital readmission, but little is known about their economic value. Objective: To systematically review economic evaluations of QI interventions designed to reduce readmissions. Data Sources: Databases searched included PubMed, Econlit, the Centre for Reviews & Dissemination Economic Evaluations, New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report, and Worldcat (January 2004 to July 2016). Study Selection: Dual reviewers selected English-language studies from high-income countries that evaluated organizational or structural changes to reduce hospital readmission, and that reported program and readmission-related costs. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual reviewers extracted intervention characteristics, study design, clinical effectiveness, study quality, economic perspective, and costs. We calculated the risk difference and net costs to the health system in 2015 US dollars. Weighted least-squares regression analyses tested predictors of the risk difference and net costs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes measures included the risk difference in readmission rates and incremental net cost. This systematic review and data analysis is reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Of 5205 articles, 50 unique studies were eligible, including 25 studies in populations limited to heart failure (HF) that included 5768 patients, 21 in general populations that included 10 445 patients, and 4 in unique populations. Fifteen studies lasted up to 30 days while most others lasted 6 to 24 months. Based on regression analyses, readmissions declined by an average of 12.1% among patients with HF (95% CI, 8.3%-15.9%; P < .001; based on 22 studies with complete data) and by 6.3% among general populations (95% CI, 4.0%-8.7%; P < .001; 18 studies). The mean net savings to the health system per patient was $972 among patients with HF (95% CI, -$642 to $2586; P = .23; 24 studies), and the mean net loss was $169 among general populations (95% CI, -$2610 to $2949; P = .90; 21 studies), reflecting nonsignificant differences. Among general populations, interventions that engaged patients and caregivers were associated with greater net savings ($1714 vs -$6568; P = .006). Conclusions and Relevance: Multicomponent QI interventions can be effective at reducing readmissions relative to the status quo, but net costs vary. Interventions that engage general populations of patients and their caregivers may offer greater value to the health system, but the implications for patients and caregivers are unknown.
Importance: Quality improvement (QI) interventions can reduce hospital readmission, but little is known about their economic value. Objective: To systematically review economic evaluations of QI interventions designed to reduce readmissions. Data Sources: Databases searched included PubMed, Econlit, the Centre for Reviews & Dissemination Economic Evaluations, New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report, and Worldcat (January 2004 to July 2016). Study Selection: Dual reviewers selected English-language studies from high-income countries that evaluated organizational or structural changes to reduce hospital readmission, and that reported program and readmission-related costs. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual reviewers extracted intervention characteristics, study design, clinical effectiveness, study quality, economic perspective, and costs. We calculated the risk difference and net costs to the health system in 2015 US dollars. Weighted least-squares regression analyses tested predictors of the risk difference and net costs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes measures included the risk difference in readmission rates and incremental net cost. This systematic review and data analysis is reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Of 5205 articles, 50 unique studies were eligible, including 25 studies in populations limited to heart failure (HF) that included 5768 patients, 21 in general populations that included 10 445 patients, and 4 in unique populations. Fifteen studies lasted up to 30 days while most others lasted 6 to 24 months. Based on regression analyses, readmissions declined by an average of 12.1% among patients with HF (95% CI, 8.3%-15.9%; P < .001; based on 22 studies with complete data) and by 6.3% among general populations (95% CI, 4.0%-8.7%; P < .001; 18 studies). The mean net savings to the health system per patient was $972 among patients with HF (95% CI, -$642 to $2586; P = .23; 24 studies), and the mean net loss was $169 among general populations (95% CI, -$2610 to $2949; P = .90; 21 studies), reflecting nonsignificant differences. Among general populations, interventions that engaged patients and caregivers were associated with greater net savings ($1714 vs -$6568; P = .006). Conclusions and Relevance: Multicomponent QI interventions can be effective at reducing readmissions relative to the status quo, but net costs vary. Interventions that engage general populations of patients and their caregivers may offer greater value to the health system, but the implications for patients and caregivers are unknown.
Authors: Harlan M Krumholz; Joan Amatruda; Grace L Smith; Jennifer A Mattera; Sarah A Roumanis; Martha J Radford; Paula Crombie; Viola Vaccarino Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-01-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Glenn Gade; Ingrid Venohr; Douglas Conner; Kathleen McGrady; Jeffrey Beane; Robert H Richardson; Marilyn P Williams; Marcia Liberson; Mark Blum; Richard Della Penna Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: A Giordano; S Scalvini; E Zanelli; U Corrà; G L Longobardi; V A Ricci; P Baiardi; F Glisenti Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2008-01-28 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Frances Kam Yuet Wong; Ching So; June Chau; Antony Kwan Pui Law; Stanley Ku Fu Tam; Sarah McGhee Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2014-10-29 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Marc D Samsky; Andrew P Ambrosy; Erik Youngson; Li Liang; Padma Kaul; Adrian F Hernandez; Eric D Peterson; Finlay A McAlister Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Hyo Jung Tak; Li-Wu Chen; Fernando A Wilson; Andrew M Goldsweig; Dmitry Oleynikov; Michael Hawking; Ya-Chen Tina Shih Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Alexander C Razavi; Dominique J Monlezun; Alexander Sapin; Leah Sarris; Emily Schlag; Amber Dyer; Timothy Harlan Journal: Am J Lifestyle Med Date: 2019-07-14
Authors: Ioana Popescu; Neeraj Sood; Sushant Joshi; Peter Huckfeldt; José Escarce; Teryl K Nuckols Journal: Med Care Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jason H Wasfy; Michael K Hidrue; Jacqueline Ngo; Varsha K Tanguturi; Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca; Ryan W Thompson; Natalie Johnson; Susan T McDermott; Jagmeet P Singh; Marcela G Del Carmen; Timothy G Ferris Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2020-05-12