Roles of disease severity and post-discharge outpatient visits as predictors of hospital readmissions.

BACKGROUND: Risks prediction models of 30-day all-cause hospital readmissions are multi-factorial. Severity of illness (SOI) and risk of mortality (ROM) categorized by All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR-DRG) seem to predict hospital readmission but lack large sample validation. Effects of risk reduction interventions including providing post-discharge outpatient visits remain uncertain. We aim to determine the accuracy of using SOI and ROM to predict readmission and further investigate the role of outpatient visits in association with hospital readmission. METHODS: Hospital readmission data were reviewed retrospectively from September 2012 through June 2015. Patient demographics and clinical variables including insurance type, homeless status, substance abuse, psychiatric problems, length of stay, SOI, ROM, ICD-10 diagnoses and medications prescribed at discharge, and prescription ratio at discharge (number of medications prescribed divided by number of ICD-10 diagnoses) were analyzed using logistic regression. Relationships among SOI, type of hospital visits, time between hospital visits, and readmissions were also investigated. RESULTS: A total of 6011 readmissions occurred from 55,532 index admissions. The adjusted odds ratios of SOI and ROM predicting readmissions were 1.31 (SOI: 95 % CI 1.25-1.38) and 1.09 (ROM: 95 % CI 1.05-1.14) separately. Ninety percent (5381/6011) of patients were readmitted from the Emergency Department (ED) or Urgent Care Center (UCC). Average time interval from index discharge date to ED/UCC visit was 9 days in both the no readmission and readmission groups (p > 0.05). Similar hospital readmission rates were noted during the first 10 days from index discharge regardless of whether post-index discharge patient clinic visits occurred when time-to-event analysis was performed. CONCLUSIONS: SOI and ROM significantly predict hospital readmission risk in general. Most readmissions occurred among patients presenting for ED/UCC visits after index discharge. Simply providing early post-discharge follow-up clinic visits does not seem to prevent hospital readmissions.

Emergency department management of patients with rib fracture based on a clinical practice guideline.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have the ability to increase efficiency and standardize care. A CPG based on forced vital capacity (FVC) for rib fractures was developed as a tool for triage of these patients. The objectives of this study were to assess the efficacy and compliance of physicians with this rib fracture CPG. METHODS: Patients >18 that were discharged from an urban level 2 trauma center emergency department (ED) between the dates of January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2016, were eligible for the study. Demographics, mechanism, outcomes and FVC were abstracted by review of the electronic medical record. Compliance with the CPG was examined, and comparisons were made between patients successfully discharged and patients who returned. RESULTS: 455 patients met were identified during the study period. 233 were eligible after exclusions. 64% of the cohort was male with median age of 53 years. Falls were the most common mechanism (59.6%). The median number of rib fractures was 2 and median FVC 2500 mL. 28 (12.0%) of the 233 returned to the ED after discharge. The groups were well matched with no significant differences. The most common reason for return was pain (95%). Adjusted analysis showed that increasing age (adjusted OR (AOR) 0.968) and FVC (AOR 0.999) were independent predictors. Adherence with the CPG was good for hemothorax/pneumothorax and bilateral fractures (96%), but lagged with the number of fractures (74%). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that the rib fracture CPG is safe and an FVC of 1500 mL is a safe criterion for discharging patients with rib fractures. Interestingly, it appears that older age is protective. More work needs to be done on effective pain control to decrease return to ED visits using this CPG. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV. TYPE OF STUDY: Therapeutic.