Search

Purpose: Cancer, with readmission rates as high as 27%, has thus far been excluded from most readmission reduction efforts. However, some readmissions for patients with advanced disease may be avoidable. We assessed the prevalence of potentially preventable readmissions and associated factors in patients with metastatic cancer. Patients and Methods: Using a merged longitudinal data set of New York State hospital discharges and vital records, we measured 30-day readmissions for anemia, dehydration, diarrhea, emesis, fever, nausea, neutropenia, pain, pneumonia, and sepsis among patients with metastatic cancer between 2012 and 2014. We used competing-risk models to assess the effects of demographics, comorbidities, hospital type, payer, and discharge disposition. Results: A total of 11,275 patients had 19,307 hospitalizations. The 30-day readmission rate was 24.5%; 11.9% (n = 565) of readmissions were potentially preventable. Higher readmission rates occurred in black (hazard rate [HR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.35), Hispanic (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.31), and younger patients (HR per 10 years, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.97). Lower rates were associated with female sex (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.99), private insurance (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.81), teaching hospitals, and hospice discharge (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.91). Discharge home with services (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.27) or to a skilled nursing facility (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.23) increased readmission likelihood. Potentially preventable readmissions were associated with younger age (HR per 10 years, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.98 to 0.99) and discharge home with services (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.50). Likelihood decreased if care was received at a teaching hospital (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.99). Payer, sex, race, and comorbidities did not contribute. Conclusion: Although the overall rate of potentially preventable readmissions among patients with metastatic cancer is low, higher readmission rates among those discharged home with help suggest that services supplied may not be sufficient to address health needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recognizing the need for improved communication with patients at the point of hospital discharge, a group of clinicians, patients, and designers in Toronto, Canada collaborated to develop a standardized tool known as the Patient-Oriented Discharge Summary (PODS). Although quantitative results suggest PODS helps mitigate gaps in knowledge, a qualitative inquiry from the clinician and patient perspective of psychiatric hospital discharge using PODS has not been widely explored. Our aim was to explore clinicians' and patients' experiences with PODS.Methods: We used a qualitative thematic analysis to explore clinicians' (n = 10) and patients' (n = 6) experiences with PODS. We used convenience sampling to identify and invite potential participants at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, Canada to participate in semi-structured interviews between February 2019 and September 2019. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach to develop descriptive themes.Results: Emerging themes from the data between clinicians and patients were both different and complementary. Clinicians described PODS using the concept of "goals of care." They relayed their experiences with PODS as a discrete event and emphasized its role in meeting their "goals of care" for discharge planning. Patients provided more of a "goals of life" perspective on recovery. They characterized PODS as only one facet of their recovery journey and not necessarily as a discrete or memorable event. Patients focused on their outcomes post-discharge and situated their experiences with PODS through its relation to their overall recovery.Conclusions: PODS was experienced differently by clinicians and patients. Clinicians experienced PODS as helpful in orienting them to the fulfillment of goals of care. Patients did not experience PODS as a particularly memorable intervention. Due to the information advantage that clinicians have about PODS, it is not surprising that clinicians and patients experienced the PODS differently. This study expanded our understanding of hospital discharge from clinicians and patients perspectives, and suggests that there are additional areas that need improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]