Faculty Bibliography

Objectives: Discharges against medical advice (AMA) occur when patients leave the hospital prior to a physician-recommended endpoint. It is unknown whether AMA discharges are associated with higher healthcare costs within 30 days of discharge. We examine healthcare costs following a hospital discharge in a commercially insured population.
Method(s): This retrospective cohort study examined individuals aged 18 to 64 with a hospitalization during 2007-2015 from a 10% random sample of enrollees in the IQVIA^TM Adjudicated Health Plan Claims Data. We included individuals with insurance coverage 6 months before and 30 days after their first hospitalization. Individuals with AMA and non-AMA discharges were matched on baseline covariates. Generalized linear models and cost ratios (CR) were used to quantify the association between AMA discharges and 30-day costs. We report CRs overall and by points of service (inpatient, emergency department (ED), physician office, non-physician outpatient encounter (NPOE) and prescription drug fill).
Result(s): Of the 467,746 individuals in the unmatched sample, 2,164 (0.46%) were discharged AMA. Mean (median) costs were 20% (5%) higher in the AMA group compared to the non-AMA group. In the matched sample and relative to those discharged routinely, individuals with an AMA discharge incurred 1.20 times (95% CI: 1.08, 1.34) higher costs. Similarly, individuals with an AMA discharge incurred higher inpatient (CR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.45, 2.01) and ED (CR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.84, 2.39) costs within 30 days post-discharge. Conversely, individuals with an AMA discharge incurred lower NPOE (CR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.74, 0.95) and prescription drug fill (CR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.73, 0.91) costs. There were no differences in physician office visit costs across the two groups.
Conclusion(s): An AMA discharge is associated with higher 30-day costs compared to those discharged routinely, particularly for acute care services. Future work should determine whether these findings extend to publicly-insured individuals.
Copyright

Objectives: 1-2% of all hospital discharges are designated as a discharge against medical advice (DAMA), and patients with DAMA have poorer outcomes. To our knowledge, there is no prior study that decomposes variation at the level of hospital discharges into patient and non-patient-level factors contributing to DAMA, and we seek to do so in our study. Methods: We used the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2014, an all-payer healthcare database that provides a stratified sample of 20% of all discharges from US hospitals. We included patients > 18 years, in the general medical group, with known discharge status, and who were not transferred out or did not die in hospital. With our final sample of 2,687,430 discharges, we grouped variables from our data, and ran incremental mixed-effects logit models, with grouping at the level of the discharge, the hospital, and the census region. We obtained the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and evaluated the percentage change in ICC. Results: Our preliminary analysis showed associations with DAMA in line with previous studies: younger age, male gender, African-American race, residence in a large metropolis. Of interest, however, is our finding that of the overall variation in DAMA outcomes, 12.8% is associated with the hospital the discharge occurred from, and 1.2% of the variation with the census division the hospital is located in. This decreased with the addition of variables to the models, and the final, fully-adjusted model has 7.3% of variation in DAMA associated with the hospital-level, with the greatest percentage reductions occurring due to the addition of patient demographics. Conclusions: Our study is the first to explore the percentage in variation in DAMA due to patient, hospital and census-division characteristics. We find that even after adjusting for patient-level characteristics, there is a contribution of non-patient-level factors to DAMA outcomes

The Ethics Consultation Quality Assessment Tool (ECQAT) establishes standards by which the quality of ethics consultation records (ECRs) can be assessed. These standards relate to the ethics question, consultation-specific information, ethical analysis, and recommendations and/or conclusions, and result in a score associated with one of four levels of ethics consultation quality. For the ECQAT to be useful in assessing and improving the quality of healthcare ethics consultations, individuals who rate the quality of ECRs need to be able to reliably use the tool. We developed a short course to train ethics consultants in using the ECQAT, and evaluated whether the participants (1) achieved an acceptable level of calibration in matching expert-established quality scores for a set of ethics consultations, and (2) were satisfied with the course. We recruited 28 ethics consultants to participate in a virtual, six-session course. At each session participants and faculty reviewed, rated, and discussed one to two ECRs. The participants' calibration in matching expert-established quality scores improved with repeated exposure at all levels of ethics consultation quality. Participants were generally more accurate when assessing consultation quality at the dichotomous level of "acceptable" (scores of three or four) versus "unacceptable" (scores of one or two) than they were with more a specific score. Participants had higher rates of accuracy with the extreme ratings of "strong" (level four) or "poor" (level one). Although participants were highly satisfied with the course, only a minority of participants achieved the prespecified acceptable level of calibration (that is, 80 percent or greater accuracy between their score and expert-established scores). These results suggest that ECQAT training may require more sessions or need modification in the protocol to achieve higher reliability in scoring. Such trainings are an important next step in ensuring that the ECQAT is a tool that can be used to promote improvement in ethics consultation quality.