Search

Background: Patients aged ≥ 65 years are vulnerable to readmissions due to a transient period of generalized risk after hospitalization. However, whether young and middle-aged adults share a similar risk pattern is uncertain. We compared the rate, timing, and readmission diagnoses following hospitalization for heart failure (HF), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and pneumonia among patients aged 18-64 years with patients aged ≥ 65 years. Methods and Findings: We used an all-payer administrative dataset from California consisting of all hospitalizations for HF (n = 206,141), AMI (n = 107,256), and pneumonia (n = 199,620) from 2007-2009. The primary outcomes were unplanned 30- day readmission rate, timing of readmission, and readmission diagnoses. Our findings show that the readmission rate among patients aged 18-64 years exceeded the readmission rate in patients aged ≥ 65 years in the HF cohort (23.4% vs. 22.0%, p < 0.001), but was lower in the AMI (11.2% vs. 17.5%, p < 0.001) and pneumonia (14.4% vs. 17.3%, p < 0.001) cohorts. When adjusted for sex, race, comorbidities, and payer status, the 30-day readmission risk in patients aged 18-64 years was similar to patients ≥ 65 years in the HF (HR 0.99; 95%CI 0.97-1.02) and pneumonia (HR 0.97; 95%CI 0.94- 1.01) cohorts and was marginally lower in the AMI cohort (HR 0.92; 95%CI 0.87-0.96). For all cohorts, the timing of readmission was similar; readmission risks were highest between days 2 and 5 and declined thereafter across all age groups. Diagnoses other than the index admission diagnosis accounted for a substantial proportion of readmissions among age groups < 65 years; a non-cardiac diagnosis represented 39-44% of readmissions in the HF cohort and 37-45% of readmissions in the AMI cohort, while a non-pulmonary diagnosis represented 61-64% of patients in the pneumonia cohort. Conclusion: When adjusted for differences in patient characteristics, young and middle-aged adults have 30-day readmission rates that are similar to elderly patients for HF, AMI, and pneumonia. A generalized risk after hospitalization is present regardless of age., Introduction Reducing readmissions is a key focus of current health policy initiatives in the United States (US). The scope of the problem among elderly individuals is well established--one in five [...]

Background: The environment in which a patient lives influences their health outcomes. However, the degree to which community factors are associated with readmissions is uncertain. Objective: To estimate the influence of community factors on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services risk-standardized hospital-wide readmission measure (HWR)–a quality performance measure in the U.S. Research design: We assessed 71 community variables in 6 domains related to health outcomes: clinical care; health behaviors; social and economic factors; the physical environment; demographics; and social capital. Subjects: Medicare fee-for-service patients eligible for the HWR measure between July 2014-June 2015 (n = 6,790,723). Patients were linked to community variables using their 5-digit zip code of residence. Methods: We used a random forest algorithm to rank variables for their importance in predicting HWR scores. Variables were entered into 6 domain-specific multivariable regression models in order of decreasing importance. Variables with P-values <0.10 were retained for a final model, after eliminating any that were collinear. Results: Among 71 community variables, 19 were retained in the 6 domain models and in the final model. Domains which explained the most to least variance in HWR were: physical environment (R2 = 15%); clinical care (R2 = 12%); demographics (R2 = 11%); social and economic environment (R2 = 7%); health behaviors (R2 = 9%); and social capital (R2 = 8%). In the final model, the 19 variables explained more than a quarter of the variance in readmission rates (R2 = 27%). Conclusions: Readmissions for a wide range of clinical conditions are influenced by factors relating to the communities in which patients reside. These findings can be used to target efforts to keep patients out of the hospital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Concern has been raised about consequences of including patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or heart transplantation in readmission and mortality measures. Methods: We calculated unadjusted and hospital-specific 30-day risk-standardized mortality (RSMR) and readmission (RSRR) rates for all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with a primary diagnosis of AMI or HF discharged between July 2010 and June 2013. Hospitals were compared before and after excluding LVAD and heart transplantation patients. LVAD indication was measured. Results: In the AMI mortality (n = 506,543) and readmission (n = 526,309) cohorts, 1,166 and 1,016 patients received an LVAD while 3 and 2 had a heart transplantation, respectively. In the HF mortality (n = 1,015,335) and readmission (n = 1,254,124) cohorts, 789 and 931 received an LVAD, while 212 and 202 received a heart transplantation, respectively. Less than 2% of hospitals had either ≥6 patients who received an LVAD or, independently, had ≥1 heart transplantation. The AMI mortality and readmission cohorts used 1.8% and 2.8% of LVADs for semi-permanent/permanent indications, versus 73.8% and 78.0% for HF patients, respectively. The rest were for temporary/external indications. In the AMI cohort, RSMR for hospitals without LVAD patients versus hospitals with ≥6 LVADs was 14.8% and 14.3%, and RSRR was 17.8% and 18.3%, respectively; the HF cohort RSMR was 11.9% and 9.7% and RSRR was 22.6% and 23.4%, respectively. In the AMI cohort, RSMR for hospitals without versus with heart transplantation patients was 14.7% and 13.9% and RSRR was 17.8% and 17.7%, respectively; in the HF cohort, RSMR was 11.9% and 11.0%, and RSRR was 22.6% and 22.6%, respectively. Estimations changed ≤0.1% after excluding LVAD or heart transplantation patients. Conclusion: Hospitals caring for ≥6 patients with LVAD or ≥1 heart transplantation typically had a trend toward lower RSMRs but higher RSRRs. Rates were insignificantly changed when these patients were excluded. LVADs were primarily for acute-care in the AMI cohort and chronic support in the HF cohort. LVAD and heart transplantation patients are a distinct group with differential care requirements and outcomes, thus should be considered separately from the rest of the HF cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]