Causes and patterns of readmissions in patients with common comorbidities: retrospective cohort study

Objective To evaluate the primary diagnoses and patterns of 30 day readmissions and potentially avoidable readmissions in medical patients with each of the most common comorbidities. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Academic tertiary medical centre in Boston, 2009-10. Participants: 10 731 consecutive adult discharges from a medical department. Main outcome measures Primary readmission diagnoses of readmissions within 30 days of discharge and potentially avoidable 30 day readmissions to the index hospital or two other hospitals in its network. Results: Among 10 731 discharges, 2398 (22.3%) were followed by a 30 day readmission, of which 858 (8.0%) were identified as potentially avoidable. Overall, infection, neoplasm, heart failure, gastrointestinal disorder, and liver disorder were the most frequent primary diagnoses of potentially avoidable readmissions. Almost all of the top five diagnoses of potentially avoidable readmissions for each comorbidity were possible direct or indirect complications of that comorbidity. In patients with a comorbidity of heart failure, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation, or chronic kidney disease, the most common diagnosis of potentially avoidable readmission was acute heart failure. Patients with neoplasm, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease had a higher risk of potentially avoidable readmissions than did those without those comorbidities. Conclusions: The five most common primary diagnoses of potentially avoidable readmissions were usually possible complications of an underlying comorbidity. Post-discharge care should focus attention not just on the primary index admission diagnosis but also on the comorbidities patients have

Effectiveness of Transition Care Intervention Targeted to High-Risk Patients to Reduce Readmissions: Study Protocol for the TARGET-READ Multicenter Randomized-Controlled Trial.

Hospital readmissions within 30 days represent a burden for the patients and the entire health care system. Improving the care around hospital discharge period could decrease the risk of avoidable readmissions. We describe the methods of a trial that aims to evaluate the effect of a structured multimodal transitional care intervention targeted to higher-risk medical patients on 30-day unplanned readmissions and death. The TARGET-READ study is an investigator-initiated, pragmatic single-blinded randomized multicenter controlled trial with two parallel groups. We include all adult patients at risk of hospital readmission based on a simplified HOSPITAL score of ≥4 who are discharged home or nursing home after a hospital stay of one day or more in the department of medicine of the four participating hospitals. The patients randomized to the intervention group will receive a pre-discharge intervention by a study nurse with patient education, medication reconciliation, and follow-up appointment with their referring physician. They will receive short follow-up phone calls at 3 and 14 days after discharge to ensure medication adherence and follow-up by the ambulatory care physician. A blind study nurse will collect outcomes at 1 month by phone call interview. The control group will receive usual care. The TARGET-READ study aims to increase the knowledge about the efficacy of a bundled intervention aimed at reducing 30-day hospital readmission or death in higher-risk medical patients

Do Hospitalists or Physicians with Greater Inpatient HIV Experience Improve HIV Care in the Era of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy? Results from a Multicenter Trial of Academic Hospitalists

Background. Little is known about the effect of provider type and experience on outcomes, resource use, and processes of care of hospitalized patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Hospitalists are caring for this population with increasing frequency. Methods. Data from a natural experiment in which patients were assigned to physicians on the basis of call cycle was used to study the effects of provider type—that is, hospitalist versus non hospitalist—and HIV-specific inpatient experience on resource use, outcomes, and selected measures of processes of care at 6 academic institutions. Administrative data, inpatient interviews, 30-day follow-up interviews, and the National Death Index were used to measure outcomes. Results. A total of 1207 patients were included in the analysis. There were few differences in resource use, outcomes, and processes of care by provider type and experience with HIV-infected inpatients. Patients who received hospitalist care demonstrated a trend toward increased length of hospital stay compared with patients who did not receive hospitalist care (6.0 days vs. 5.2 days; Pp .13). Inpatient providers with moderate experience with HIV-infected patients were more likely to coordinate care with outpatient providers (odds ratio, 2.40; Pp .05) than were those with the least experience with HIV-infected patients, but this pattern did not extend to providers with the highest level of experience. Conclusion. Provider type and attending physician experience with HIV-infected inpatients had minimal effect on the quality of care of HIV-infected inpatients. Approaches other than provider experience, such as the use of multidisciplinary inpatient teams, may be better targets for future studies of the outcomes, processes of care, and resource use of HIV-infected inpatients

How Do Care Transitions Work?: Unraveling the Working Mechanisms of Care Transition Interventions

BACKGROUND: Failure of safe care transitions after hospital discharge results in unnecessary worsening of symptoms, extended period of illness or readmission to the hospital. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to add to the understanding of the working of care transition interventions between hospital and home through unraveling the contextual elements and mechanisms that may have played a role in the success of these interventions, and by developing a conceptual model of how these components relate to each other. RESEARCH DESIGN: This was a qualitative study using in-person, semi-structured interviews, based on realist evaluation methods. SUBJECTS: A total of 26 researchers, designers, administrators, and/or practitioners of both current "leading" care transitions interventions and of less successful care transition intervention studies or practices. MEASURES: The contextual elements and working mechanisms of the different care transition intervention studies or practices. RESULTS: Three main contextual factors (internal environment, external environment, and patient population) and 7 working mechanisms (simplifiying, verifiying, connecting, translating, coaching, monitoring, and anticipating) were found to be relevant to the outcome of care transition interventions. Context, Intervention, Mechanism, and Outcome (CIMO) configurations revealed that, in response to these contextual factors, care transition interventions triggered one or several of the mechanisms, in turn generating outcomes, including a safer care transition. CONCLUSION: We developed a conceptual model which explains the working of care transition interventions within different contexts, and believe it can help support future successful implementation of care transition interventions

Design of MARQUIS2: study protocol for a mentored implementation study of an evidence-based toolkit to improve patient safety through medication reconciliation.

BackgroundThe first Multi-center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study (MARQUIS1) demonstrated that implementation of a medication reconciliation best practices toolkit decreased total unintentional medication discrepancies in five hospitals. We sought to implement the MARQUIS toolkit in more diverse hospitals, incorporating lessons learned from MARQUIS1.MethodsMARQUIS2 is a pragmatic, mentored implementation QI study which collected clinical and implementation outcomes. Sites implemented a revised toolkit, which included interventions from these domains: 1) best possible medication history (BPMH)-taking; 2) discharge medication reconciliation and patient/caregiver counseling; 3) identifying and defining clinician roles and responsibilities; 4) risk stratification; 5) health information technology improvements; 6) improved access to medication sources; 7) identification and correction of real-time discrepancies; and, 8) stakeholder engagement. Eight hospitalists mentored the sites via one site visit and monthly phone calls over the 18-month intervention period. Each site's local QI team assessed opportunities to improve, implemented at least one of the 17 toolkit components, and accessed a variety of resources (e.g. implementation manual, webinars, and workshops). Outcomes to be assessed will include unintentional medication discrepancies per patient.DiscussionA mentored multi-center medication reconciliation QI initiative using a best practices toolkit was successfully implemented across 18 medical centers. The 18 participating sites varied in size, teaching status, location, and electronic health record (EHR) platform. We introduce barriers to implementation and lessons learned from MARQUIS1, such as the importance of utilizing dedicated, trained medication history takers, simple EHR solutions, clarifying roles and responsibilities, and the input of patients and families when improving medication reconciliation

Rationale and design of the Multicenter Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study (MARQUIS)

Background: Unresolved medication discrepancies during hospitalization can contribute to adverse drug events, resulting in patient harm. Discrepancies can be reduced by performing medication reconciliation; however, effective implementation of medication reconciliation has proven to be challenging. The goals of the Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study (MARQUIS) are to operationalize best practices for inpatient medication reconciliation, test their effect on potentially harmful unintentional medication discrepancies, and understand barriers and facilitators of successful implementation. Methods: Six U.S. hospitals are participating in this quality improvement mentored implementation study. Each hospital has collected baseline data on the primary outcome: the number of potentially harmful unintentional medication discrepancies per patient, as determined by a trained on-site pharmacist taking a “gold standard” medication history. With the guidance of their mentors, each site has also begun to implement one or more of 11 best practices to improve medication reconciliation. To understand the effect of the implemented interventions on hospital staff and culture, we are performing mixed methods program evaluation including surveys, interviews, and focus groups of front line staff and hospital leaders. Discussion At baseline the number of unintentional medication discrepancies in admission and discharge orders per patient varies by site from 2.35 to 4.67 (mean=3.35). Most discrepancies are due to history errors (mean 2.12 per patient) as opposed to reconciliation errors (mean 1.23 per patient). Potentially harmful medication discrepancies averages 0.45 per patient and varies by site from 0.13 to 0.82 per patient. We discuss several barriers to implementation encountered thus far. In the end, we anticipate that MARQUIS tools and lessons learned have the potential to decrease medication discrepancies and improve patient outcomes. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT0133706

Geriatric pharmacotherapy : optimisation through integrated approach in the hospital setting

Since older patients are more vulnerable to adverse drug-related events, there is a need to ensure appropriate prescribing in these patients in order to prevent misuse, overuse and underuse of drugs. Different tools and strategies have been developed to reduce inappropriate prescribing; the available measures can be divided into medication assessment tools, and specific interventions to reduce inappropriate prescribing. Implicit criteria of inappropriate prescribing focus on appropriate dosing, search for drug-drug interactions, and increase adherence. Explicit criteria are consensus-based standards focusing on drugs and diseases and include lists of drugs to avoid in general or lists combining drugs with clinical data. These criteria take into consideration differences between patients, and stand for a medication review, by using a systematic approach. Different types of interventions exist in order to reduce inappropriate prescribing in older patients, such as: educational interventions, computerized decision support systems, pharmacist-based interventions, and geriatric assessment. The effects of these interventions have been studied, sometimes in a multifaceted approach combining different techniques, and all types seem to have positive effects on appropriateness of prescribing. Interdisciplinary teamwork within the integrative pharmaceutical care is important for improving of outcomes and safety of drug therapy. The pharmaceutical care process consists offour steps, which are cyclic for an individual patient. These steps are pharmaceutical anamnesis, medication review, design and follow-up of a pharmaceutical care plan. A standardized approach is necessary for the adequate detection and evaluation of drug-related problems. Furthermore, it is clear that drug therapy should be reviewed in-depth, by having full access to medical records, laboratory values and nursing notes. Although clinical pharmacists perform the pharmaceutical care process to manage the patient’s drug therapy in every day clinical practice, the physician takes the ultimate responsibility for the care of the patient in close collaboration with nurses

Implementation of Complex Interventions: Lessons Learned From the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Transitional Care Portfolio

BACKGROUND: Despite the well-documented risks to patient safety associated with transitions from one care setting to another, health care organizations struggle to identify which interventions to implement. Multiple strategies are often needed, and studying the effectiveness of these complex interventions is challenging. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to present lessons learned in implementing and evaluating complex transitional care interventions in routine clinical care. RESEARCH DESIGN: Nine transitional care study teams share important common lessons in designing complex interventions with stakeholder engagement, implementation, and evaluation under pragmatic conditions (ie, using only existing resources), and disseminating findings in outlets that reach policy makers and the people who could ultimately benefit from the research. RESULTS: Lessons learned serve as a guide for future studies in 3 areas: (1) Delineating the function (intended purpose) versus form (prespecified modes of delivery of the intervention); (2) Evaluating both the processes supporting implementation and the impact of adaptations; and (3) Engaging stakeholders in the design and delivery of the intervention and dissemination of study results. CONCLUSION: These lessons can help guide future pragmatic studies of care transitions