Search

Objectives To determine whether high performing hospitals with low 30 day risk standardized readmission rates have a lower proportion of readmissions from specific diagnoses and time periods after admission or instead have a similar distribution of readmission diagnoses and timing to lower performing institutions. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Medicare beneficiaries in the United States. Participants Patients aged 65 and older who were readmitted within 30 days after hospital admission for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or pneumonia in 2007-09. Main outcome measures Readmission diagnoses were classified with a modified version of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' condition categories, and readmission timing was classified by day (0-30) after hospital discharge. Hospital 30 day risk standardized readmission rates over the three years of study were calculated with public reporting methods of the US federal government, and hospitals were categorized with bootstrap analysis as having high, average, or low readmission performance for each index condition. High and low performing hospitals had ≥95% probability of having an interval estimate respectively less than or greater than the national 30 day readmission rate over the three year period of study. All remaining hospitals were considered average performers. Results For readmissions in the 30 days after the index admission, there were 320 003 after 1 291 211 admissions for heart failure (4041 hospitals), 102 536 after 517 827 admissions for acute myocardial infarction (2378 hospitals), and 208 438 after 1 135 932 admissions for pneumonia (4283 hospitals). The distribution of readmissions by diagnosis was similar across categories of hospital performance for all three conditions. High performing hospitals had fewer readmissions for all common diagnoses. Median time to readmission was similar by hospital performance for heart failure and acute myocardial infarction, though was 1.4 days longer among high versus low performing hospitals for pneumonia (P<0.001). Findings were unchanged after adjustment for other hospital characteristics potentially associated with readmission patterns. Conclusions High performing hospitals have proportionately fewer 30 day readmissions without differences in readmission diagnoses and timing, suggesting the possible benefit of strategies that lower risk of readmission globally rather than for specific diagnoses or time periods after hospital stay. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the association between hospital readmission and mortality rates for cardiac patients who were presented with clinical case of acute myocardial infarction, heart failure and pneumonia. It highlights the impact of quality of medical care provided by health care centers in resolving the risk associated with cardiac patients. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in the U.S. on the basis of a cohort analysis revealed that differences in performance of hospitals and diagnostic parameters implied by hospital were of immense use in determination of readmission rate and mortality rate of cardiac patients.

The article focuses on a study regarding the evaluation of readmission and timing among Medicare beneficiaries who are readmitted for heart failure (HF), acute myocardial infarction (MI) and pneumonia. It mentions that hospital readmissions report poor health care facility and states that the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has started public reporting of outcomes for improving the hospital care quality. The study reveals that 30-day readmissions were frequent throughout the month after rehospitalization for HF, MI and pneumonia. It also presents statistics which depict the readmission of patients.

The article examines whether hospitals attending to higher volumes of patients have lower readmission rates. Topics discussed include the high quality of care observed in hospitals with high patient volume and the high readmission rates noticeable in facilities with patient volume. The role played by competing risk of mortality is then explored.

There is an active public debate about whether patients' socioeconomic status should be included in the readmission measures used to determine penalties in Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP). Using the current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services methodology, we compared risk-standardized readmission rates for hospitals caring for high and low proportions of patients of low socioeconomic status (as defined by their Medicaid status or neighborhood income). We then calculated risk-standardized readmission rates after additionally adjusting for patients' socioeconomic status. Our results demonstrate that hospitals caring for large proportions of patients of low socioeconomic status have readmission rates similar to those of other hospitals. Moreover, readmission rates calculated with and without adjustment for patients' socioeconomic status are highly correlated. Readmission rates of hospitals caring for patients of low socioeconomic status changed by approximately 0.1 percent with adjustment for patients' socioeconomic status, and only 3-4 percent fewer such hospitals reached the threshold for payment penalty in Medicare's HRRP. Overall, adjustment for socioeconomic status does not change hospital results in meaningful ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Programs from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services simultaneously promote strategies to lower hospital admissions and readmissions. However, there is concern that hospitals in communities that successfully reduce admissions may be penalized, as patients that are ultimately hospitalized may be sicker and at higher risk of readmission. We therefore examined the relationship between changes from 2010 to 2013 in admission rates and thirty-day readmission rates for elderly Medicare beneficiaries. We found that communities with the greatest decline in admission rates also had the greatest decline in thirty-day readmission rates, even though hospitalized patients did grow sicker as admission rates declined. The relationship between changing admission and readmission rates persisted in models that measured observed readmission rates, risk-standardized readmission rates, and the combined rate of readmission and death. Our findings suggest that communities can reduce admission rates and readmission rates in parallel, and that federal policy incentivizing reductions in both outcomes does not create contradictory incentives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background-Registry studies have suggested improvements in door-to-balloon times, but a national assessment of the trends in door-to-balloon times is lacking. Moreover, we do not know whether improvements in door-to-balloon times were shared equally among patient and hospital groups. Methods and Results-This analysis includes all patients reported by hospitals to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for inclusion in the time to percutaneous coronary intervention (acute myocardial infarction-8) inpatient measure from January 1, 2005, through September 30, 2010. For each calendar year, we summarized the characteristics of patients reported for the measure, including the number and percentage in each group, the median time to primary percutaneous coronary intervention, and the percentage with time to primary percutaneous coronary intervention within 75 minutes and within 90 minutes. Door-to-balloon time declined from a median of 96 minutes in the year ending December 31, 2005, to a median of 64 minutes in the 3 quarters ending September 30, 2010. There were corresponding increases in the percentage of patients who had times <90 minutes (44.2% to 91.4%) and <75 minutes (27.3% to 70.4%). The declines in median times were greatest among groups that had the highest median times during the first period: patients >75 years of age (median decline, 38 minutes), women (35 minutes), and blacks (42 minutes). Conclusion-National progress has been achieved in the timeliness of treatment of patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]