Publications

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may have affected the preventability of 30-day hospital revisits, including readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits without admission. This study was conducted to examine the preventability of 30-day revisits for patients admitted with COVID-19 in order to inform the design of interventions that may decrease preventable revisits in the future.

METHODS: The study team retrospectively reviewed a cohort of adults admitted to an academic medical center with COVID-19 between March 21 and June 29, 2020, and discharged alive. Patients with a 30-day revisit following hospital discharge were identified. Two-physician review was used to determine revisit preventability, identify factors contributing to preventable revisits, assess potential preventive interventions, and establish the influence of pandemic-related conditions on the revisit.

RESULTS: Seventy-six of 576 COVID-19 hospitalizations resulted in a 30-day revisit (13.2%), including 21 ED visits without admission (3.6%) and 55 readmissions (9.5%). Of these 76 revisits, 20 (26.3%) were potentially preventable. The most frequently identified factors contributing to preventable revisits were related to the choice of postdischarge location and to patient/caregiver understanding of the discharge medication regimen, each occurring in 25.0% of cases. The most frequently cited potentially preventive intervention was "improved self-management plan at discharge," occurring in 65.0% of cases. Five of the 20 preventable revisits (25.0%) had contributing factors that were thought to be directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSION: Although only approximately one quarter of 30-day hospital revisits following admission with COVID-19 were potentially preventable, these results highlight opportunities for improvement to reduce revisits going forward.

BACKGROUND: Recent policy initiatives aim to improve the value of care for patients hospitalized with pneumonia. It is unclear whether higher 30-day episode spending at the hospital level is associated with any difference in patient mortality among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries.

METHODS: This retrospective cohort study assessed the association between hospital-level spending and patient-level mortality for a 30-day episode of care. The study used data for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized at an acute care hospital with a principal diagnosis of pneumonia from July 2011 to June 2014. Analysis was conducted by using Medicare payment data made publicly available by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on the Hospital Compare website combined with Medicare Part A claims data to identify patient outcomes.

RESULTS: A total of 1,017,353 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries were hospitalized for pneumonia across 3,021 US hospitals during the study period. Mean ± SD 30-day spending for an episode of pneumonia care was $14,324 ± $1,305. The observed 30-day all-cause mortality rate was 11.9%. After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, no association was found between higher 30-day episode spending at the hospital level and 30-day patient mortality (adjusted OR, 1.00 for every $1,000 increase in spending; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01).

CONCLUSIONS: Higher hospital-level spending for a 30-day episode of care for pneumonia was not associated with any difference in patient mortality.

IMPORTANCE: Evidence is lacking on the consequences of high rates of inpatient consultation.

OBJECTIVE: To examine outcomes and resource use of patients cared for by hospitalists who use more inpatient consultation than their colleagues.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study of medical admissions to hospitalists among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries was conducted. Hospitalist consultation tendency was identified from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2014; admissions were calculated in 2013; and outcomes were measured in 2014. Data were analyzed from January 31, 2017, to May 9, 2019. A total of 711 654 admissions with patients receiving care from 14 584 hospitalists at 737 hospitals were included.

EXPOSURE: Admission to high-consulting hospitalists, considered to be those who were in the top 25% of the distribution of consulting frequency at their own hospital (adjusted for patient case mix).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes included length of stay, Medicare Part B inpatient charges, discharge destination, all-cause 7- and 30-day readmissions, 90-day outpatient specialist visits, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS: The 711 654 hospital admissions included 408 489 women (57.4%); mean (SD) age of the population was 80 (8.5) years. Length of stay of patients cared for by high-consulting hospitalists was longer compared with other hospitalists (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.05). The admissions resulted in a mean of $137.91 (95% CI, $118.89-$156.93) more in Medicare Part B charges and were less likely to end with the patient going home (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98) compared with patients cared for by other hospitalists in the cohort. Patients cared for by high-consulting hospitalists also were 7% more likely than patients cared for by other hospitalists to see an outpatient specialist at 90 days (aOR 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.09), with no significant differences in 30-day mortality (aOR 1.01, 95% CI, 0.98-1.03) or readmissions (7-day readmissions: aOR 1.01; 95% CI, 0.98-1.03; 30-day readmissions: aOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.03).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hospitalists who obtain consultations more than their colleagues at the same institution were associated with greater use of health care resources without apparent mortality benefit. Further investigation should identify whether reducing high rates of consultation can reduce resource use without harming patients.

Rationale: The care of critically ill patients often involves complex discussions surrounding prognosis, goals, and end-of-life decision-making. Yet, physician and hospital practice patterns, rather than patient goals, remain a major determinant of the intensity of end-of-life care. For critically ill patients, palliative care may help promote treatments that are concordant with patients' goals, while minimizing the use of invasive and costly intensive care unit resources that may not be consistent with those goals.Objectives: To determine whether inpatient palliative care, delivered by specialist consultants or a primary medical team, is associated with reduced hospital length of stay and costs for older adults with septic shock at the end of life.Methods: This was a retrospective cohort using the National Inpatient Sample from 2013 to 2014, examining patients aged ≥65 years with septic shock who died during their hospitalization. The exposure of interest was inpatient palliative care encounter, including either generalist- or specialist-delivered palliative care. Outcomes were hospital length of stay, total cost for the hospitalization, and daily hospital cost. Patient and hospital-level confounders were used to derive inverse probability of treatment weights and estimate the association between palliative care and outcomes in a generalized linear model.Results: We studied 45,868 patients who died with a diagnosis of septic shock; 15,370 of these patients had a palliative care encounter. After inverse probability of treatment weighting, there were no appreciable differences between the population characteristics. Palliative care was associated with a shorter adjusted mean hospital length of stay (12.0 vs. 13.1 d; difference, -1.1 d; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4 to -0.9; P < 0.001), lower total hospital costs (69,700 vs. 76,800 U.S. dollars [USD]; difference, -7,100 USD; 95% CI, -8.5 to -5.2 thousand USD; P < 0.001), and lower daily hospital cost (5,900 vs. 6,200 USD; difference, -310 USD per day; 95% CI, -420 to -200 USD; P < 0.001) when compared with no palliative care.Conclusions: In a nationally representative sample of adults who died during a hospitalization with septic shock, receipt of palliative care was associated with shorter length of stay and lower total and daily hospital costs. This finding was robust to adjustment for patient- and hospital-level confounders, though unmeasured confounders still could be affecting these findings.

Because dyspnoea is seldom experienced by healthy people, it can be hard for clinicians and researchers to comprehend the patient's experience. We collected patients' descriptions of dyspnoea in their own words during a parent study in which 156 hospitalised patients completed a quantitative multidimensional dyspnoea questionnaire. These volunteered comments describe the severity and wide range of experiences associated with dyspnoea and its impacts on a patients' life. They provide insights not conveyed by structured rating scales. We organised these comments into the most prominent themes, which included sensory experiences, emotional responses, self-blame and precipitating events. Patients often mentioned air hunger ('Not being able to get air is the worst thing that could ever happen to you.'), anxiety, and fear ('Scared. I thought the world was going to end, like in a box.'). Their value in patient care is suggested by one subject's comment: 'They should have doctors experience these symptoms, especially dyspnoea, so they understand what patients are going through.' Patients' own words can help to bridge this gap of understanding.