Ambarish Pandey1, Neil Keshvani1, Mary S Vaughan-Sarrazin2,3, Yubo Gao2,3, Saket Girotra2,3,4. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX (A.P., N.K.). 2. Center for Access and Delivery Research and Evaluation, Iowa City Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Iowa (M.S.V.-S., Y.G., S.G.). 3. Department of Internal Medicine (M.S.V.-S., Y.G., S.G.), Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City. 4. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine (S.G.)., Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The utility of 30-day risk-standardized readmission rate (RSRR) as a hospital performance metric has been a matter of debate. Home time is a patient-centered outcome measure that accounts for rehospitalization, mortality, and postdischarge care. We aim to characterize risk-adjusted 30-day home time in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) as a hospital-level performance metric and to evaluate associations with 30-day RSRR, 30-day risk-standardized mortality rate (RSMR), and 1-year RSMR. METHODS: The study included 984 612 patients with AMI hospitalization across 2379 hospitals between 2009 and 2015 derived from 100% Medicare claims data. Home time was defined as the number of days alive and spent outside of a hospital, skilled nursing facility, or intermediate-/long-term acute care facility 30 days after discharge. Correlations between hospital-level risk-adjusted 30-day home time and 30-day RSRR, 30-day RSMR, and 1-year RSMR were estimated with the Pearson correlation. Reclassification in hospital performance using 30-day home time versus 30-day RSRR and 30-day RSMR was also evaluated. RESULTS: Median hospital-level risk-adjusted 30-day home time was 24.0 days (range, 15.3-29.0 days). Hospitals with higher home time were more commonly academic centers, had available cardiac surgery and rehabilitation services, and had higher AMI volume and percutaneous coronary intervention use during the AMI hospitalization. Of the mean 30-day home time days lost, 58% were to intermediate-/long-term care or skilled nursing facility stays (4.7 days), 30% to death (2.5 days), and 12% to readmission (1.0 days). Hospital-level risk-adjusted 30-day home time was inversely correlated with 30-day RSMR (r=-0.22, P<0.0001) and 30-day RSRR (r=-0.25, P<0.0001). Patients admitted to hospitals with higher risk-adjusted 30-day home time had lower 30-day readmission (quartile 1 versus 4, 21% versus 17%), 30-day mortality rate (5% versus 3%), and 1-year mortality rate (18% versus 12%). Furthermore, 30-day home time reclassified hospital performance status in ≈30% of hospitals versus 30-day RSRR and 30-day RSMR. CONCLUSIONS: Thirty-day home time for patients with AMI can be assessed as a hospital-level performance metric with the use of Medicare claims data. It varies across hospitals, is associated with postdischarge readmission and mortality outcomes, and meaningfully reclassifies hospital performance compared with the 30-day RSRR and 30-day RSMR metrics.
BACKGROUND: The utility of 30-day risk-standardized readmission rate (RSRR) as a hospital performance metric has been a matter of debate. Home time is a patient-centered outcome measure that accounts for rehospitalization, mortality, and postdischarge care. We aim to characterize risk-adjusted 30-day home time in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) as a hospital-level performance metric and to evaluate associations with 30-day RSRR, 30-day risk-standardized mortality rate (RSMR), and 1-year RSMR. METHODS: The study included 984 612 patients with AMI hospitalization across 2379 hospitals between 2009 and 2015 derived from 100% Medicare claims data. Home time was defined as the number of days alive and spent outside of a hospital, skilled nursing facility, or intermediate-/long-term acute care facility 30 days after discharge. Correlations between hospital-level risk-adjusted 30-day home time and 30-day RSRR, 30-day RSMR, and 1-year RSMR were estimated with the Pearson correlation. Reclassification in hospital performance using 30-day home time versus 30-day RSRR and 30-day RSMR was also evaluated. RESULTS: Median hospital-level risk-adjusted 30-day home time was 24.0 days (range, 15.3-29.0 days). Hospitals with higher home time were more commonly academic centers, had available cardiac surgery and rehabilitation services, and had higher AMI volume and percutaneous coronary intervention use during the AMI hospitalization. Of the mean 30-day home time days lost, 58% were to intermediate-/long-term care or skilled nursing facility stays (4.7 days), 30% to death (2.5 days), and 12% to readmission (1.0 days). Hospital-level risk-adjusted 30-day home time was inversely correlated with 30-day RSMR (r=-0.22, P<0.0001) and 30-day RSRR (r=-0.25, P<0.0001). Patients admitted to hospitals with higher risk-adjusted 30-day home time had lower 30-day readmission (quartile 1 versus 4, 21% versus 17%), 30-day mortality rate (5% versus 3%), and 1-year mortality rate (18% versus 12%). Furthermore, 30-day home time reclassified hospital performance status in ≈30% of hospitals versus 30-day RSRR and 30-day RSMR. CONCLUSIONS: Thirty-day home time for patients with AMI can be assessed as a hospital-level performance metric with the use of Medicare claims data. It varies across hospitals, is associated with postdischarge readmission and mortality outcomes, and meaningfully reclassifies hospital performance compared with the 30-day RSRR and 30-day RSMR metrics.
Entities:
Keywords:
mortality; myocardial infarction; outcome assessment, health care; patient readmission
Authors: Joseph S Ross; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Yun Wang; Dennis T Ko; Jersey Chen; Elizabeth E Drye; Patricia S Keenan; Judith H Lichtman; Héctor Bueno; Geoffrey C Schreiner; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ambarish Pandey; Harsh Golwala; Hurst M Hall; Tracy Y Wang; Di Lu; Ying Xian; Karen Chiswell; Karen E Joynt; Abhinav Goyal; Sandeep R Das; Dharam Kumbhani; Howard Julien; Gregg C Fonarow; James A de Lemos Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Amy Y X Yu; Edwin Rogers; Meng Wang; Tolulope T Sajobi; Shelagh B Coutts; Bijoy K Menon; Michael D Hill; Eric E Smith Journal: Neurology Date: 2017-10-11 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Ambarish Pandey; Neil Keshvani; Rohan Khera; Di Lu; Muthiah Vaduganathan; Karen E Joynt Maddox; Sandeep R Das; Dharam J Kumbhani; Abhinav Goyal; Saket Girotra; Paul Chan; Gregg C Fonarow; Roland Matsouaka; Tracy Y Wang; James A de Lemos Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Ambarish Pandey; Harsh Golwala; Haolin Xu; Adam D DeVore; Roland Matsouaka; Michael Pencina; Dharam J Kumbhani; Adrian F Hernandez; Deepak L Bhatt; Paul A Heidenreich; Clyde W Yancy; James A de Lemos; Gregg C Fonarow Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 12.035
Authors: Harlan M Krumholz; Zhenqiu Lin; Elizabeth E Drye; Mayur M Desai; Lein F Han; Michael T Rapp; Jennifer A Mattera; Sharon-Lise T Normand Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2011-03
Authors: Devraj Sukul; Milan Seth; James M Dupree; John D Syrjamaki; Andrew M Ryan; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Hitinder S Gurm Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Amgad Mentias; Milind Y Desai; Mary S Vaughan-Sarrazin; Shreya Rao; Alanna A Morris; Jennifer L Hall; Venu Menon; Jason Hockenberry; Mario Sims; Gregg C Fonarow; Saket Girotra; Ambarish Pandey Journal: Circulation Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 39.918
Authors: Rajeshwari Nair; Yubo Gao; Mary S Vaughan-Sarrazin; Eli Perencevich; Saket Girotra; Ambarish Pandey Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 6.473