Mei-Chin Su1,2, Yu-Chun Chen2,3,4, Mei-Shu Huang1, Yen-Hsi Lin3, Li-Hwa Lin1,5, Hsiao-Ting Chang3,4, Tzeng-Ji Chen2,3,4. 1. Department of Nursing, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei 112, Taiwan. 2. Institute of Hospital and Health Care Administration, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan. 3. Department of Family Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei 112, Taiwan. 4. School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan. 5. Institute of Public Health, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effectively predicting and reducing readmission in long-term home care (LTHC) is challenging. We proposed, validated, and evaluated a risk management tool that stratifies LTHC patients by LACE predictive score for readmission risk, which can further help home care providers intervene with individualized preventive plans. METHOD: A before-and-after study was conducted by a LTHC unit in Taiwan. Patients with acute hospitalization within 30 days after discharge in the unit were enrolled as two cohorts (Pre-Implement cohort in 2017 and Post-Implement cohort in 2019). LACE score performance was evaluated by calibration and discrimination (AUC, area under receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve). The clinical utility was evaluated by negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: There were 48 patients with 87 acute hospitalizations in Pre-Implement cohort, and 132 patients with 179 hospitalizations in Post-Implement cohort. These LTHC patients were of older age, mostly intubated, and had more comorbidities. There was a significant reduction in readmission rate by 44.7% (readmission rate 25.3% vs. 14.0% in both cohorts). Although LACE score predictive model still has room for improvement (AUC = 0.598), it showed the potential as a useful screening tool (NPV, 87.9%; 95% C.I., 74.2-94.8). The reduction effect is more pronounced in infection-related readmission. CONCLUSION: As real-world evidence, LACE score-based risk management tool significantly reduced readmission by 44.7% in this LTHC unit. Larger scale studies involving multiple homecare units are needed to assess the generalizability of this study.
BACKGROUND: Effectively predicting and reducing readmission in long-term home care (LTHC) is challenging. We proposed, validated, and evaluated a risk management tool that stratifies LTHC patients by LACE predictive score for readmission risk, which can further help home care providers intervene with individualized preventive plans. METHOD: A before-and-after study was conducted by a LTHC unit in Taiwan. Patients with acute hospitalization within 30 days after discharge in the unit were enrolled as two cohorts (Pre-Implement cohort in 2017 and Post-Implement cohort in 2019). LACE score performance was evaluated by calibration and discrimination (AUC, area under receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve). The clinical utility was evaluated by negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: There were 48 patients with 87 acute hospitalizations in Pre-Implement cohort, and 132 patients with 179 hospitalizations in Post-Implement cohort. These LTHC patients were of older age, mostly intubated, and had more comorbidities. There was a significant reduction in readmission rate by 44.7% (readmission rate 25.3% vs. 14.0% in both cohorts). Although LACE score predictive model still has room for improvement (AUC = 0.598), it showed the potential as a useful screening tool (NPV, 87.9%; 95% C.I., 74.2-94.8). The reduction effect is more pronounced in infection-related readmission. CONCLUSION: As real-world evidence, LACE score-based risk management tool significantly reduced readmission by 44.7% in this LTHC unit. Larger scale studies involving multiple homecare units are needed to assess the generalizability of this study.
Entities:
Keywords:
LACE score; long-term care (LTC); long-term home care (LTHC); predictive model; readmission; readmission risk management
Authors: Ana Carolina Alba; Thomas Agoritsas; Michael Walsh; Steven Hanna; Alfonso Iorio; P J Devereaux; Thomas McGinn; Gordon Guyatt Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Cornelia Straßner; Mariell Hoffmann; Johanna Forstner; Catharina Roth; Joachim Szecsenyi; Michel Wensing Journal: Qual Manag Health Care Date: 2020 Apr/Jun Impact factor: 0.926
Authors: Erica Heppleston; Christopher H Fry; Kevin Kelly; Beth Shepherd; Ria Wright; Gareth Jones; Jonathan Robin; Paul Murray; David Fluck; Thang S Han Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2020-06-05 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Jingjing Shang; David Russell; Dawn Dowding; Margaret V McDonald; Christopher Murtaugh; Jianfang Liu; Elaine L Larson; Sridevi Sridharan; Carlin Brickner Journal: J Healthc Qual Date: 2020 May/Jun Impact factor: 1.028
Authors: Feng Xie; Nan Liu; Linxuan Yan; Yilin Ning; Ka Keat Lim; Changlin Gong; Yu Heng Kwan; Andrew Fu Wah Ho; Lian Leng Low; Bibhas Chakraborty; Marcus Eng Hock Ong Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2022-03-06