Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with diabetes have experienced a disproportionate reduction in mortality over the past decade. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether this differential decrease affected all patients with diabetes, and to identify explanatory factors. DESIGN: Serial, cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: Academic medical center. PATIENTS: All adult, nonobstetric patients with an inpatient discharge between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2010. MEASUREMENT: We assessed in-hospital mortality; inpatient glycemic control (percentage of hospital days with glucose below 70, above 299, and between 70 and 179 mg/dL, and standard deviation of glucose measurements), and outpatient glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c). RESULTS: We analyzed 322,938 admissions, including 76,758 (23.8%) with diabetes. Among 54,645 intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, there was a 7.8% relative reduction in the odds of mortality in each successive year for patients with diabetes, adjusted for age, race, payer, length of stay, discharge diagnosis, comorbidities, and service (odds ratio [OR]: 0.923, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.906-0.940). This was significantly greater than the 2.6% yearly reduction for those without diabetes (OR: 0.974, 95% CI: 0.963-0.985; P < 0.001 for interaction). In contrast, the greater decrease in mortality among non-ICU patients with diabetes did not reach significance. Results were similar among medical and surgical patients. Among ICU patients with diabetes, the significant decline in mortality persisted after adjustment for inpatient and outpatient glucose control (OR: 0.953, 95% CI: 0.914-0.994). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with diabetes in the ICU have experienced a disproportionate reduction in mortality that is not explained by glucose control. Potential explanations include improved cardiovascular risk management or advances in therapies for diseases commonly affecting patients with diabetes. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2015. (c) 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine.

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.