Jing Li1, Gaixin Du2, Jessica Miller Clouser2, Arnold Stromberg3, Glen Mays4, Joann Sorra5, Jane Brock6, Terry Davis7, Suzanne Mitchell8, Huong Q Nguyen9, Mark V Williams2. 1. Center for Health Services Research, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA. jingli.tj@uky.edu. 2. Center for Health Services Research, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA. 3. Department of Statistics, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA. 4. Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, USA. 5. Westat, Rockville, USA. 6. Telligen Quality Improvement Organization, West Des Moines, USA. 7. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, USA. 8. Boston Medical Center, Boston University, Boston, USA. 9. Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As health systems transition to value-based care, improving transitional care (TC) remains a priority. Hospitals implementing evidence-based TC models often adapt them to local contexts. However, limited research has evaluated which groups of TC strategies, or transitional care activities, commonly implemented by hospitals correspond with improved patient outcomes. In order to identify TC strategy groups for evaluation, we applied a data-driven approach informed by literature review and expert opinion. METHODS: Based on a review of evidence-based TC models and the literature, focus groups with patients and family caregivers identifying what matters most to them during care transitions, and expert review, the Project ACHIEVE team identified 22 TC strategies to evaluate. Patient exposure to TC strategies was measured through a hospital survey (N = 42) and prospective survey of patients discharged from those hospitals (N = 8080). To define groups of TC strategies for evaluation, we performed a multistep process including: using ACHIEVE'S prior retrospective analysis; performing exploratory factor analysis, latent class analysis, and finite mixture model analysis on hospital and patient survey data; and confirming results through expert review. Machine learning (e.g., random forest) was performed using patient claims data to explore the predictive influence of individual strategies, strategy groups, and key covariates on 30-day hospital readmissions. RESULTS: The methodological approach identified five groups of TC strategies that were commonly delivered as a bundle by hospitals: 1) Patient Communication and Care Management, 2) Hospital-Based Trust, Plain Language, and Coordination, 3) Home-Based Trust, Plain language, and Coordination, 4) Patient/Family Caregiver Assessment and Information Exchange Among Providers, and 5) Assessment and Teach Back. Each TC strategy group comprises three to six, non-mutually exclusive TC strategies (i.e., some strategies are in multiple TC strategy groups). Results from random forest analyses revealed that TC strategies patients reported receiving were more important in predicting readmissions than TC strategies that hospitals reported delivering, and that other key co-variates, such as patient comorbidities, were the most important variables. CONCLUSION: Sophisticated statistical tools can help identify underlying patterns of hospitals' TC efforts. Using such tools, this study identified five groups of TC strategies that have potential to improve patient outcomes.
BACKGROUND: As health systems transition to value-based care, improving transitional care (TC) remains a priority. Hospitals implementing evidence-based TC models often adapt them to local contexts. However, limited research has evaluated which groups of TC strategies, or transitional care activities, commonly implemented by hospitals correspond with improved patient outcomes. In order to identify TC strategy groups for evaluation, we applied a data-driven approach informed by literature review and expert opinion. METHODS: Based on a review of evidence-based TC models and the literature, focus groups with patients and family caregivers identifying what matters most to them during care transitions, and expert review, the Project ACHIEVE team identified 22 TC strategies to evaluate. Patient exposure to TC strategies was measured through a hospital survey (N = 42) and prospective survey of patients discharged from those hospitals (N = 8080). To define groups of TC strategies for evaluation, we performed a multistep process including: using ACHIEVE'S prior retrospective analysis; performing exploratory factor analysis, latent class analysis, and finite mixture model analysis on hospital and patient survey data; and confirming results through expert review. Machine learning (e.g., random forest) was performed using patient claims data to explore the predictive influence of individual strategies, strategy groups, and key covariates on 30-day hospital readmissions. RESULTS: The methodological approach identified five groups of TC strategies that were commonly delivered as a bundle by hospitals: 1) Patient Communication and Care Management, 2) Hospital-Based Trust, Plain Language, and Coordination, 3) Home-Based Trust, Plain language, and Coordination, 4) Patient/Family Caregiver Assessment and Information Exchange Among Providers, and 5) Assessment and Teach Back. Each TC strategy group comprises three to six, non-mutually exclusive TC strategies (i.e., some strategies are in multiple TC strategy groups). Results from random forest analyses revealed that TC strategies patients reported receiving were more important in predicting readmissions than TC strategies that hospitals reported delivering, and that other key co-variates, such as patient comorbidities, were the most important variables. CONCLUSION: Sophisticated statistical tools can help identify underlying patterns of hospitals' TC efforts. Using such tools, this study identified five groups of TC strategies that have potential to improve patient outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Hospital readmissions; Patient-centeredness; Transitional care
Authors: Jing Li; Jane Brock; Brian Jack; Brian Mittman; Mary Naylor; Joann Sorra; Glen Mays; Mark V Williams Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Christine Vogeli; Alexandra E Shields; Todd A Lee; Teresa B Gibson; William D Marder; Kevin B Weiss; David Blumenthal Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Janice L Clarke; Scott Bourn; Alexis Skoufalos; Eric H Beck; Daniel J Castillo Journal: Popul Health Manag Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 2.459
Authors: Suveen Angraal; Rohan Khera; Shengfan Zhou; Yongfei Wang; Zhenqiu Lin; Kumar Dharmarajan; Nihar R Desai; Susannah M Bernheim; Elizabeth E Drye; Khurram Nasir; Leora I Horwitz; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Am J Med Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Joann Sorra; Katarzyna Zebrak; Deborah Carpenter; Theresa Famolaro; John Rauch; Jing Li; Terry Davis; Huong Q Nguyen; Megan McIntosh; Suzanne Mitchell; Karen B Hirschman; Carol Levine; Jessica Miller Clouser; Jane Brock; Mark V Williams Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-08-09 Impact factor: 2.655