Faculty Bibliography

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: Despite recent reductions in national unplanned readmission rates, we have relatively little understanding of which hospital strategies are most associated with changes in risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRR). OBJECTIVE: We examined associations between the change in hospital 30-day RSRR for patients with heart failure and the uptake of strategies over 12-18 months in a national sample of hospitals. DESIGN: We conducted a prospective study of hospitals using a Web-based survey at baseline (November 2010-May 2011, n = 599, 91.0 % response rate) and 12-18 months later (November 2011-October 2012, n = 501, 83.6 % response rate), with RSRR measured at the same time points. The final analytic sample included 478 hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: The study included hospitals participating in the Hospital-to-Home (H2H) and State Action on Avoidable Rehospitalizations (STAAR) initiatives. MAIN MEASURES: We examined associations between change in hospital 30-day RSRR for patients with heart failure and the uptake of strategies previously demonstrated to have increased between baseline and follow-up, using unadjusted and adjusted linear regression. KEY RESULTS: The average number of strategies taken up from baseline to follow-up was 1.6 (SE = 0.06); approximately one-quarter (25.3 %) of hospitals took up at least three new strategies. Hospitals that adopted the strategy of routinely discharging patients with a follow-up appointment already scheduled experienced significant reductions in RSRR (reduction of 0.63 percentage point, p value < 0.05). Hospitals that took up three or more strategies had significantly greater reductions in RSRR compared to hospitals that took up only zero to two strategies (reduction of 1.29 versus 0.57 percentage point, p value < 0.05). Among the 117 hospitals that took up three or more strategies, 93 unique combinations of strategies were used. CONCLUSIONS: Although most individual strategies were not associated with RSRR reduction, hospitals that took up any three or more strategies showed significantly greater reduction in RSRR compared to hospitals that took up fewer than three strategies.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND: Sign-out is the process (written, verbal or both) by which one clinical team transmits information about patients to another team. Poor quality sign-outs are associated with adverse events and delayed treatment. How different specialties approach written sign-outs is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare written sign-out practices across specialties and to determine consistency of content, format and timeliness. METHODS: The authors evaluated all non-Intensive Care Unit written sign-outs from five inpatient specialties on 18 January 2012, at Yale-New Haven Hospital, focusing on content elements, format style and whether the sign-outs had been updated within 24 h. In our institution, all specialties used a single standardised sign-out template, which was built into the electronic medical record. RESULTS: The final cohort included 457 sign-outs: 313 medicine, 64 general surgery, 36 paediatrics, 30 obstetrics, and 14 gynaecology. Though nearly all sign-outs (96%) had been updated within 24 h, they frequently lacked key information. Hospital course prevalence ranged from 57% (gynaecology) to 100% (paediatrics) (p<0.001). Clinical condition prevalence ranged from 34% (surgery) to 72% (paediatrics) (p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Specialties have varied sign-out practices, and thus structured templates alone do not guarantee inclusion of critical content. Sign-outs across specialties often lacked complex clinical information such as clinical condition, anticipatory guidance and overnight tasks.