Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of hospital volume (a marker of quality of care) with hospital readmission rates. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: 4651US acute care hospitals. STUDY DATA: 6 916 644 adult discharges, excluding patients receiving psychiatric or medical cancer treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used Medicare fee-for-service data from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 to calculate observed-to-expected, unplanned, 30 day, standardized readmission rates for hospitals and for specialty cohorts medicine, surgery/gynecology, cardiorespiratory, cardiovascular, and neurology. We assessed the association of hospital volume by quintiles with 30 day, standardized readmission rates, with and without adjustment for hospital characteristics (safety net status, teaching status, geographic region, urban/rural status, nurse to bed ratio, ownership, and cardiac procedure capability. We also examined associations with the composite outcome of 30 day, standardized readmission or mortality rates. RESULTS: Mean 30 day, standardized readmission rate among the fifth of hospitals with the lowest volume was 14.7 (standard deviation 5.3) compared with 15.9 (1.7) among the fifth of hospitals with the highest volume (P<0.001). We observed the same pattern of lower readmission rates in the lowest versus highest volume hospitals in the specialty cohorts for medicine (16.6 v 17.4, P<0.001), cardiorespiratory (18.5 v 20.5, P<0.001), and neurology (13.2 v 14.0, p=0.01) cohorts; the cardiovascular cohort, however, had an inverse association (14.6 v 13.7, P<0.001). These associations remained after adjustment for hospital characteristics except in the cardiovascular cohort, which became non-significant, and the surgery/gynecology cohort, in which the lowest volume fifth of hospitals had significantly higher standardized readmission rates than the highest volume fifth (difference 0.63 percentage points (95% confidence interval 0.10 to 1.17), P=0.02). Mean 30 day, standardized mortality or readmission rate was not significantly different between highest and lowest volume fifths (20.4 v 20.2, P=0.19) and was highest in the middle fifth of hospitals (range 20.6-20.8). CONCLUSIONS: Standardized readmission rates are lowest in the lowest volume hospitals-opposite from the typical association of greater hospital volume with better outcomes. This association was independent of hospital characteristics and was only partially attenuated by examining mortality and readmission together. Our findings suggest that readmissions are associated with different aspects of care than mortality or complications.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the absolute risks for older patients of readmission to hospital and death in the year after hospitalization for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or pneumonia. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 4767 hospitals caring for Medicare fee for service beneficiaries in the United States, 2008-10. PARTICIPANTS: More than 3 million Medicare fee for service beneficiaries, aged 65 years or more, surviving hospitalization for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or pneumonia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Daily absolute risks of first readmission to hospital and death for one year after discharge. To illustrate risk trajectories, we identified the time required for risks of readmission to hospital and death to decline 50% from maximum values after discharge; the time required for risks to approach plateau periods of minimal day to day change, defined as 95% reductions in daily changes in risk from maximum daily declines after discharge; and the extent to which risks are higher among patients recently discharged from hospital compared with the general elderly population. RESULTS: Within one year of hospital discharge, readmission to hospital and death, respectively, occurred following 67.4% and 35.8% of hospitalizations for heart failure, 49.9% and 25.1% for acute myocardial infarction, and 55.6% and 31.1% for pneumonia. Risk of first readmission had declined 50% by day 38 after hospitalization for heart failure, day 13 after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction, and day 25 after hospitalization for pneumonia; risk of death declined 50% by day 11, 6, and 10, respectively. Daily change in risk of first readmission to hospital declined 95% by day 45, 38, and 45; daily change in risk of death declined 95% by day 21, 19, and 21. After hospitalization for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or pneumonia, the magnitude of the relative risk for hospital admission over the first 90 days was 8, 6, and 6 times greater than that of the general older population; the relative risk of death was 11, 8, and 10 times greater. CONCLUSIONS: Risk declines slowly for older patients after hospitalization for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or pneumonia and is increased for months. Specific risk trajectories vary by discharge diagnosis and outcome. Patients should remain vigilant for deterioration in health for an extended time after discharge. Health providers can use knowledge of absolute risks and their changes over time to better align interventions designed to reduce adverse outcomes after discharge with the highest risk periods for patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the use of intravenous fluids in the early care of patients with acute decompensated heart failure (HF) who are treated with loop diuretics. BACKGROUND: Intravenous fluids are routinely provided to many hospitalized patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted with HF to 346 hospitals from 2009 to 2010. We assessed the use of intravenous fluids during the first 2 days of hospitalization. We determined the frequency of adverse in-hospital outcomes. We assessed variation in the use of intravenous fluids across hospitals and patient groups. RESULTS: Among 131,430 hospitalizations for HF, 13,806 (11%) were in patients treated with intravenous fluids during the first 2 days. The median volume of administered fluid was 1,000 ml (interquartile range: 1,000 to 2,000 ml), and the most commonly used fluids were normal saline (80%) and half-normal saline (12%). Demographic characteristics and comorbidities were similar in hospitalizations in which patients did and did not receive fluids. Patients who were treated with intravenous fluids had higher rates of subsequent critical care admission (5.7% vs. 3.8%; p < 0.0001), intubation (1.4% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.0012), renal replacement therapy (0.6% vs. 0.3%; p < 0.0001), and hospital death (3.3% vs. 1.8%; p < 0.0001) compared with those who received only diuretics. The proportion of hospitalizations that used fluid treatment varied widely across hospitals (range: 0% to 71%; median: 12.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Many patients who are hospitalized with HF and receive diuretics also receive intravenous fluids during their early inpatient care, and the proportion varies among hospitals. Such practice is associated with worse outcomes and warrants further investigation.

BACKGROUND: Single-site studies have demonstrated inadequate quality of discharge summaries in timeliness, transmission, and content, potentially contributing to adverse outcomes. However, degree of hospital-level variation in discharge summary quality for patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed discharge summaries of patients enrolled in the Telemonitoring to Improve Heart Failure Outcomes (Tele-HF) study. We assessed hospital-level performance on timeliness (fraction of summaries completed on the day of discharge), documented transmission to the follow-up physician, and content (presence of components suggested by the Transitions of Care Consensus Conference). We obtained 1501 discharge summaries from 1640 (91.5%) patients discharged alive from 46 hospitals. Among hospitals contributing >/=10 summaries, the median hospital dictated 69.2% of discharge summaries on the day of discharge (range, 0.0%-98.0%; P<0.001); documented transmission of 33.3% of summaries to the follow-up physician (range, 0.0%-75.7%; P<0.001); and included 3.6 of 7 Transitions of Care Consensus Conference elements (range, 2.9-4.5; P<0.001). Hospital course was typically included (97.2%), but summaries were less likely to include discharge condition (30.7%), discharge volume status (16.0%), or discharge weight (15.7%). No discharge summary included all 7 Transitions of Care Consensus Conference-endorsed content elements, was dictated on the day of discharge, and was sent to a follow-up physician. CONCLUSIONS: Even at the highest performing hospital, discharge summary quality is insufficient in terms of timeliness, transmission, and content. Improvements in all aspects of discharge summary quality are necessary to enable the discharge summary to serve as an effective transitional care tool.

BACKGROUND: Existing publicly reported readmission measures are condition-specific, representing less than 20% of adult hospitalizations. An all-condition measure may better measure quality and promote innovation. OBJECTIVE: To develop an all-condition, hospital-wide readmission measure. DESIGN: Measure development study. SETTING: 4821 U.S. hospitals. PATIENTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older. MEASUREMENTS: Hospital-level, risk-standardized unplanned readmissions within 30 days of discharge. The measure uses Medicare fee-for-service claims and is a composite of 5 specialty-based, risk-standardized rates for medicine, surgery/gynecology, cardiorespiratory, cardiovascular, and neurology cohorts. The 2007-2008 admissions were randomly split for development and validation. Models were adjusted for age, principal diagnosis, and comorbid conditions. Calibration in Medicare and all-payer data was examined, and hospital rankings in the development and validation samples were compared. RESULTS: The development data set contained 8 018 949 admissions associated with 1 276 165 unplanned readmissions (15.9%). The median hospital risk-standardized unplanned readmission rate was 15.8 (range, 11.6 to 21.9). The 5 specialty cohort models accurately predicted readmission risk in both Medicare and all-payer data sets for average-risk patients but slightly overestimated readmission risk at the extremes. Overall hospital risk-standardized readmission rates did not differ statistically in the split samples (P = 0.71 for difference in rank), and 76% of hospitals' validation-set rankings were within 2 deciles of the development rank (24% were more than 2 deciles). Of hospitals ranking in the top or bottom deciles, 90% remained within 2 deciles (10% were more than 2 deciles) and 82% remained within 1 decile (18% were more than 1 decile). LIMITATION: Risk adjustment was limited to that available in claims data. CONCLUSION: A claims-based, hospital-wide unplanned readmission measure for profiling hospitals produced reasonably consistent results in different data sets and was similarly calibrated in both Medicare and all-payer data. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The objective was to assess use of a physician handoff tool embedded in the electronic medical record by nurses and other non-physicians. We administered a survey to nurses, physical therapists, discharge planners, social workers, and others to assess integration into daily practice, usefulness, and accuracy of the handoff tool. 231 individuals (61% response) participated. 60% used the tool often or usually/always during a shift. Nurses (46%) used the tool for shift transitions and found it helpful for medical history (79%) but not for acquiring medication, allergy, and responsible physician information. Nurses (96%) and others (75%) rated the tool as accurate. Medical nurses rated the tool more useful than surgical nurses, and pediatric nurses rarely used the tool. The tool was integrated into the daily workflow of non-physicians despite being designed for physician use. Non-physicians should be included in the design and implementation of electronic patient handoff systems.

Transfers of care have been associated with adverse events. High quality sign-out may help mitigate this risk. The authors sought to characterize the clinical questions asked of physicians covering patients overnight and to determine the adequacy of current sign-out practice to anticipate inquiries. The authors conducted a prospective, self-report study of interns' overnight experience at two hospitals. We collected data from novice interns (July 7-August 3, 2010) and experienced interns (March 2-March 29, 2011) in an Internal Medicine residency program. Interns recorded information about overnight inquiries regarding cross-covered patients. For each inquiry about a patient, the intern was asked to record what the situation was about, who initiated the contact, where the intern found the desired information, whether all required data was located, whether the call could have been anticipated by the primary team, if so, whether the call was anticipated, whether the sign-out was sufficient, the time required to address the question, and whether the patient was physically visited. Twenty-one interns (13 novice, 8 experienced) reported 167 overnight inquiries. Most were from nursing staff (87%) about a wide range of topics, with orders (25%) and plan of care (20%) being most common. Trainees used the oral or written sign-out to answer 56% of inquiries. The proportion of inquiries successfully anticipated (47% overall) significantly decreased as the academic year progressed (AOR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.2, 0.8). Trainees rely on sign-out to answer nearly half of overnight inquiries, but the quality of sign-out may decrease over the course of the academic year. The deterioration of sign-out quality from novice to experienced interns and the common use of sign-out as a reference by covering interns suggest continued education, support and oversight by supervising physicians may be beneficial.