Readmissions, Observation, and the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.

BACKGROUND: The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, which is included in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), applies financial penalties to hospitals that have higher-than-expected readmission rates for targeted conditions. Some policy analysts worry that reductions in readmissions are being achieved by keeping returning patients in observation units instead of formally readmitting them to the hospital. We examined the changes in readmission rates and stays in observation units over time for targeted and nontargeted conditions and assessed whether hospitals that had greater increases in observation-service use had greater reductions in readmissions. METHODS: We compared monthly, hospital-level rates of readmission and observation-service use within 30 days after hospital discharge among Medicare elderly beneficiaries from October 2007 through May 2015. We used an interrupted time-series model to determine when trends changed and whether changes differed between targeted and nontargeted conditions. We assessed the correlation between changes in readmission rates and use of observation services after adoption of the ACA in March 2010. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 3387 hospitals. From 2007 to 2015, readmission rates for targeted conditions declined from 21.5% to 17.8%, and rates for nontargeted conditions declined from 15.3% to 13.1%. Shortly after passage of the ACA, the readmission rate declined quickly, especially for targeted conditions, and then continued to fall at a slower rate after October 2012 for both targeted and nontargeted conditions. Stays in observation units for targeted conditions increased from 2.6% in 2007 to 4.7% in 2015, and rates for nontargeted conditions increased from 2.5% to 4.2%. Within hospitals, there was no significant association between changes in observation-unit stays and readmissions after implementation of the ACA. CONCLUSIONS: Readmission trends are consistent with hospitals' responding to incentives to reduce readmissions, including the financial penalties for readmissions under the ACA. We did not find evidence that changes in observation-unit stays accounted for the decrease in readmissions.

Trends in the Use of Skilled Nursing Facility and Home Health Care Under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program: An Interrupted Time-series Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Medicare's Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) penalizes hospitals with elevated 30-day readmission rates for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), or pneumonia. To reduce readmissions, hospitals may have increased referrals to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and home health care. RESEARCH DESIGN: Outcomes included 30-day postdischarge utilization of SNF and home health care, including any use as well as days of use. Subjects included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years and older who were admitted with AMI, HF, or pneumonia to hospitals subject to the HRRP. Using an interrupted time-series analysis, we compared utilization rates observed after the announcement of the HRRP (April 2010 through September 2012) and after the imposition of penalties (October 2012 through September 2014) with projected utilization rates that accounted for pre-HRRP trends (January 2008 through March 2010). Models included patient characteristics and hospital fixed effects. RESULTS: For AMI and HF, utilization of SNF and home health care remained stable overall. For pneumonia, observed utilization of any SNF care increased modestly (1.0%, P<0.001 during anticipation; 2.4%, P<0.001 after penalties) and observed utilization of any home health care services declined modestly (-0.5%, P=0.008 after announcement; -0.7%, P=0.045 after penalties) relative to projections. Beneficiaries with AMI and pneumonia treated at penalized hospitals had higher rates of being in the community 30 days postdischarge. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals might be shifting to more intensive postacute care to avoid readmissions among seniors with pneumonia. At the same time, penalized hospitals' efforts to prevent readmissions may be keeping higher proportions of their patients in the community.

Changes in Hospital Referral Patterns to Skilled Nursing Facilities Under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.

BACKGROUND: The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) penalizes hospitals for higher-than-expected readmission rates. Almost 20% of Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) patients receive postacute care in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) after hospitalization. SNF patients have high readmission rates. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the association between changes in hospital referral patterns to SNFs and HRRP penalty pressure. DESIGN: We examined changes in the relationship between penalty pressure and outcomes before versus after HRRP announcement among 2698 hospitals serving 6,936,393 Medicare FFS patients admitted for target conditions: acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia. Hospital-level penalty pressure was the expected penalty rate in the first year of the HRRP multiplied by Medicare discharge share. OUTCOMES: Informal integration measured by the percentage of referrals to hospitals' most referred SNF; formal integration measured by SNF acquisition; readmission-based quality index of the SNFs to which a hospital referred discharged patients; referral rate to any SNF. RESULTS: Hospitals facing the median level of penalty pressure had modest differential increases of 0.3 percentage points in the proportion of referrals to the most referred SNF and a 0.006 SD increase in the average quality index of SNFs referred to. There were no statistically significant differential increases in formal acquisition of SNFs or referral rate to SNF. CONCLUSIONS: HRRP did not prompt substantial changes in hospital referral patterns to SNFs, although readmissions for patients referred to SNF differentially decreased more than for other patients, warranting investigation of other mechanisms underlying readmissions reduction.

How Have 30-Day Readmission Penalties Affected Racial Disparities in Readmissions?: an Analysis from 2007 to 2014 in Five US States.

BACKGROUND: Thirty-day readmission penalties implemented with the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) place a larger burden on safety-net hospitals which treat a disproportionate share of racial minorities, leading to concerns that already large racial disparities in readmissions could widen. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether there were changes in Black-White disparities in 30-day readmissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), congestive heart failure (CHF), or pneumonia following the passage and implementation of HRRP, and to compare disparities across safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals. DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional analysis, stratified by safety-net status. SUBJECTS: 1,745,686 Medicare patients over 65 discharged alive from hospitals in 5 US states: NY, FL, NE, WA, and AR. MAIN MEASURES: Odds ratios comparing 30-day readmission rates following an index admission for AMI, CHF, or pneumonia for Black and White patients between 2007 and 2014. KEY RESULTS: Prior to the passage of HRRP in 2010, Black and White readmission rates and disparities in readmissions were decreasing. These reductions were largest at safety-net hospitals. In 2007, Blacks had 13% higher odds of readmission if treated in safety-net hospitals, compared with 5% higher odds in 2010 (P < 0.05). These trends continued following the passage of HRRP. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to HRRP, there were large reductions in Black-White disparities in readmissions at safety-net hospitals. Although HRRP tends to assess higher penalties for safety-net hospitals, improvements in readmissions have not reversed following the implementation of HRRP. In contrast, disparities continue to persist at non-safety-net hospitals which face much lower penalties.

[Characteristics of patients who received an indication of involuntary admission, with or without the involvement of a third party, in a Parisian psychiatric emergency unit]. / Caractérisation d'une population de patients hospitalisés sous contrainte en ASPDT/u et ASPPI à partir d'un service d'urgence psychiatrique parisien.

BACKGROUND: The French mental health law, first enacted on July 5, 2011, introduced the possibility of psychiatric commitment in case of extreme urgency (imminent peril - ASPPI). The decision of involuntary admission can then be made by the hospital director based on a medical certificate, without the need of a third party request. This procedure was intended to be applied on an exceptional basis, but its use is steadily increasing against the other types of involuntary care. Our study aimed at comparing the characteristics of patients who had received an indication for involuntary admission due to imminent peril (ASPPI) or at the request of a third party (ASPDT/u) in a psychiatric emergency ward, according to sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and regarding the potential implication of a third party. METHODS: An observational study was conducted among patients from the Centre Psychiatrique d'Orientation et d'Accueil (CPOA), located at Sainte-Anne hospital in Paris, from August 1st to 31st, 2016. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty patients with an indication for involuntary commitment were included, 101 of whom for ASPDT/u (67 %) and 49 for ASPPI (33 %). For more than half of the patients from the ASPPI group, a third party had been identified with (39 %) or without (17 %) contact information. Compared to ASPDT/u patients, ASPPI individuals were more socially vulnerable, showed more negligence, and had a lower mean functioning score. The indication for ASPPI status was also associated with behavioural quirks, prior psychiatric hospitalization (especially as an ASPPI patient) and with the diagnosis of chronic psychosis instead of mood disorder. CONCLUSION: Our exploratory results help to better understand how the ASPPI procedure is used in psychiatric emergency wards six years after enactment of the law. They highlight the differences between ASPPI patients and ASPDT/u and raise ethical issues regarding involuntary psychiatric care.

Readmission rates in not-for-profit vs. proprietary hospitals before and after the hospital readmission reduction program implementation.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act established the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) to penalize hospitals with excessive 30-day hospital readmissions of Medicare enrollees for specific conditions. This policy was aimed at increasing the quality of care delivered to patients and decreasing the amount of money paid for potentially preventable hospital readmissions. While it has been established that the number of 30-day hospital readmissions decreased after program implementation, it is unknown whether this effect occurred equally between not-for-profit and proprietary hospitals. The aim of this study was to determine whether or not the HRRP decreased readmission rates equally between not-for-profit and proprietary hospitals between 2010 and 2012. METHODS: Data on readmissions came from the Dartmouth Atlas and hospital ownership data came from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Data were joined using the Medicare provider number. Using a difference-in-differences approach, bivariate and regression analyses were conducted to compare readmission rates between not-for-profit and proprietary hospitals between 2010 and 2012 and were adjusted for hospital characteristics. RESULTS: In 2010, prior to program implementation, unadjusted readmission rates for proprietary and not-for-profit hospitals were 16.16% and 15.78%, respectively. In 2012, following program implementation, 30-day readmission rates dropped to 15.76% and 15.29% for proprietary and not-for-profit hospitals. The data suggest that the implementation of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program had similar effects on not-for-profit and proprietary hospitals with respect to readmission rates, even after adjusting for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Although not-for-profit hospitals had lower 30-day readmission rates than proprietary hospitals in both 2010 and 2012, they both decreased after the implementation of the HRRP and the decreases were not statistically significantly different. Thus, this study suggests that the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program was equally effective in reducing readmission rates, despite ownership status.

Association of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program With Mortality Among Medicare Beneficiaries Hospitalized for Heart Failure, Acute Myocardial Infarction, and Pneumonia.

Importance: The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) has been associated with a reduction in readmission rates for heart failure (HF), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and pneumonia. It is unclear whether the HRRP has been associated with change in patient mortality. Objective: To determine whether the HRRP was associated with a change in patient mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of hospitalizations for HF, AMI, and pneumonia among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged at least 65 years across 4 periods from April 1, 2005, to March 31, 2015. Period 1 and period 2 occurred before the HRRP to establish baseline trends (April 2005-September 2007 and October 2007-March 2010). Period 3 and period 4 were after HRRP announcement (April 2010 to September 2012) and HRRP implementation (October 2012 to March 2015). Exposures: Announcement and implementation of the HRRP. Main Outcomes and Measures: Inverse probability-weighted mortality within 30 days of discharge following hospitalization for HF, AMI, and pneumonia, and stratified by whether there was an associated readmission. An additional end point was mortality within 45 days of initial hospital admission for target conditions. Results: The study cohort included 8.3 million hospitalizations for HF, AMI, and pneumonia, among which 7.9 million (mean age, 79.6 [8.7] years; 53.4% women) were alive at discharge. There were 3.2 million hospitalizations for HF, 1.8 million for AMI, and 3.0 million for pneumonia. There were 270 517 deaths within 30 days of discharge for HF, 128 088 for AMI, and 246 154 for pneumonia. Among patients with HF, 30-day postdischarge mortality increased before the announcement of the HRRP (0.27% increase from period 1 to period 2). Compared with this baseline trend, HRRP announcement (0.49% increase from period 2 to period 3; difference in change, 0.22%, P = .01) and implementation (0.52% increase from period 3 to period 4; difference in change, 0.25%, P = .001) were significantly associated with an increase in postdischarge mortality. Among patients with AMI, HRRP announcement was associated with a decline in postdischarge mortality (0.18% pre-HRRP increase vs 0.08% post-HRRP announcement decrease; difference in change, -0.26%; P = .01) and did not significantly change after HRRP implementation. Among patients with pneumonia, postdischarge mortality was stable before HRRP (0.04% increase from period 1 to period 2), but significantly increased after HRRP announcement (0.26% post-HRRP announcement increase; difference in change, 0.22%, P = .01) and implementation (0.44% post-HPPR implementation increase; difference in change, 0.40%, P < .001). The overall increase in mortality among patients with HF and pneumonia was mainly related to outcomes among patients who were not readmitted but died within 30 days of discharge. For all 3 conditions, HRRP implementation was not significantly associated with an increase in mortality within 45 days of admission, relative to pre-HRRP trends. Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare beneficiaries, the HRRP was significantly associated with an increase in 30-day postdischarge mortality after hospitalization for HF and pneumonia, but not for AMI. Given the study design and the lack of significant association of the HRRP with mortality within 45 days of admission, further research is needed to understand whether the increase in 30-day postdischarge mortality is a result of the policy.

Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders.

BACKGROUND: It is controversial whether compulsory community treatment (CCT) for people with severe mental illness (SMI) reduces health service use, or improves clinical outcome and social functioning. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of compulsory community treatment (CCT) for people with severe mental illness (SMI). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (2003, 2008, 2012, 8 November 2013, 3 June 2016). We obtained all references of identified studies and contacted authors where necessary. SELECTION CRITERIA: All relevant randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of CCT compared with standard care for people with SMI (mainly schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders, bipolar disorder, or depression with psychotic features). Standard care could be voluntary treatment in the community or another pre-existing form of CCT such as supervised discharge. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality and extracted data. We used Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. For binary outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect risk ratio (RR), its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) and, where possible, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). For continuous outcomes, we calculated a fixed-effect mean difference (MD) and its 95% CI. We used the GRADE approach to create 'Summary of findings' tables for key outcomes and assessed the risk of bias of these findings. MAIN RESULTS: The review included three studies (n = 749). Two were based in the USA and one in England. The English study had the least bias, meeting three out of the seven criteria of Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. The two other studies met only one criterion, the majority being rated unclear.Two trials from the USA (n = 416) compared court-ordered 'outpatient commitment' (OPC) with entirely voluntary community treatment. There were no significant differences between OPC and voluntary treatment by 11 to 12 months in any of the main health service or participant level outcome indices: service use - readmission to hospital (2 RCTs, n= 416, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.21, low-quality evidence); service use - compliance with medication (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19, low-quality evidence); social functioning - arrested at least once (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.52, low-quality evidence); social functioning - homelessness (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.15, low-quality evidence); or satisfaction with care - perceived coercion (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.89, low-quality evidence). However, one trial found the risk of victimisation decreased with OPC (1 RCT, n = 264, RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.80, low-quality evidence).The other RCT compared community treatment orders (CTOs) with less intensive and briefer supervised discharge (Section 17) in England. The study found no difference between the two groups for either the main health service outcomes including readmission to hospital by 12 months (1 RCT, n = 333, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.32, moderate-quality evidence), or any of the participant level outcomes. The lack of any difference between the two groups persisted at 36 months' follow-up.Combining the results of all three trials did not alter these results. For instance, participants on any form of CCT were no less likely to be readmitted than participants in the control groups whether on entirely voluntary treatment or subject to intermittent supervised discharge (3 RCTs, n = 749, RR for readmission to hospital by 12 months 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16 moderate-quality evidence). In terms of NNTB, it would take 142 orders to prevent one readmission. There was no clear difference between groups for perceived coercion by 12 months (3 RCTs, n = 645, RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.71, moderate-quality evidence).There were no data for adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: These review data show CCT results in no clear difference in service use, social functioning or quality of life compared with voluntary care or brief supervised discharge. People receiving CCT were, however, less likely to be victims of violent or non-violent crime. It is unclear whether this benefit is due to the intensity of treatment or its compulsory nature. Short periods of conditional leave may be as effective (or non-effective) as formal compulsory treatment in the community. Evaluation of a wide range of outcomes should be considered when this legislation is introduced. However, conclusions are based on three relatively small trials, with high or unclear risk of blinding bias, and low- to moderate-quality evidence. In addition, clinical trials may not fully reflect the potential benefits of this complex intervention.

Quantifying and Predicting Surgeon Work Input in Primary vs Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed annually are projected to increase 174% by 2030, causing a parallel increase for revision THA. Increased surgical effort and readmission rates associated with revision THA may discourage surgeons from performing them. Although revision THA Medicare reimbursement is greater, it may be disproportionate to time and effort. We examined work input between primary and revision THA, assessing predictive factors. We also compared surgeon work input to current reimbursement. METHODS: A total of 156 patients were identified, 80 primary and 76 revision THA. Demographic, clinical, and radiographic data were collected. Radiographic data were collected from the most recent preoperative radiographs taken before primary or revision THA. Multiple linear and logistic regression models were used to identify patient factors contributing to select outcome variables by a stepwise method, with a probability value for entry (P = .05) and removal (P = .10). Residual analysis was performed, confirming validity of these models. RESULTS: Average age, body mass index, and percentage of female patients were similar between cohorts. There was no statistically significant difference between the demographic variables, although data revealed patient variables contributing to statistically significant increases in surgical time, length of stay, blood loss, and complications with revision THA. CONCLUSION: Despite a 66% increase in "percent effort" and 3-fold higher readmission rate, revision THA requires at least a 2-fold increase because of nonquantifiable factors. Revision THA demonstrates a substantial increase in work effort not commensurate with current Medicare reimbursement, which may force surgeons to limit or eliminate revision arthroplasties performed reducing access to patient care.

Association Between Hospital Penalty Status Under the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program and Readmission Rates for Target and Nontarget Conditions.

Importance: Readmission rates declined after announcement of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP), which penalizes hospitals for excess readmissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia. Objective: To compare trends in readmission rates for target and nontarget conditions, stratified by hospital penalty status. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries older than 64 years discharged between January 1, 2008, and June 30, 2015, from 2214 penalty hospitals and 1283 nonpenalty hospitals. Difference-interrupted time-series models were used to compare trends in readmission rates by condition and penalty status. Exposure: Hospital penalty status or target condition under the HRRP. Main Outcomes and Measures: Thirty-day risk adjusted, all-cause unplanned readmission rates for target and nontarget conditions. Results: The study included 48 137 102 hospitalizations of 20 351 161 Medicare beneficiaries. In January 2008, the mean readmission rates for AMI, HF, pneumonia, and nontarget conditions were 21.9%, 27.5%, 20.1%, and 18.4%, respectively, at hospitals later subject to financial penalties and 18.7%, 24.2%, 17.4%, and 15.7% at hospitals not subject to penalties. Between January 2008 and March 2010, prior to HRRP announcement, readmission rates were stable across hospitals (except AMI at nonpenalty hospitals). Following announcement of HRRP (March 2010), readmission rates for both target and nontarget conditions declined significantly faster for patients at hospitals later subject to financial penalties compared with those at nonpenalized hospitals (for AMI, additional decrease of -1.24 [95% CI, -1.84 to -0.65] percentage points per year relative to nonpenalty discharges; for HF, -1.25 [95% CI, -1.64 to -0.86]; for pneumonia, -1.37 [95% CI, -1.80 to -0.95]; and for nontarget conditions, -0.27 [95% CI, -0.38 to -0.17]; P < .001 for all). For penalty hospitals, readmission rates for target conditions declined significantly faster compared with nontarget conditions (for AMI, additional decline of -0.49 [95% CI, -0.81 to -0.16] percentage points per year relative to nontarget conditions [P = .004]; for HF, -0.90 [95% CI, -1.18 to -0.62; P < .001]; and for pneumonia, -0.57 [95% CI, -0.92 to -0.23; P < .001]). In contrast, among nonpenalty hospitals, readmissions for target conditions declined similarly or more slowly compared with nontarget conditions (for AMI, additional increase of 0.48 [95% CI, 0.01-0.95] percentage points per year [P = .05]; for HF, 0.08 [95% CI, -0.30 to 0.46; P = .67]; for pneumonia, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.13-0.93; P = .01]). After HRRP implementation in October 2012, the rate of change for readmission rates plateaued (P < .05 for all except pneumonia at nonpenalty hospitals), with the greatest relative change observed among hospitals subject to financial penalty. Conclusions and Relevance: Medicare fee-for-service patients at hospitals subject to penalties under the HRRP had greater reductions in readmission rates compared with those at nonpenalized hospitals. Changes were greater for target vs nontarget conditions for patients at the penalized hospitals but not at the other hospitals.

Heart failure is a major contributor to hospital readmission penalties.

BACKGROUND: The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program provides incentives to hospitals to reduce early readmissions for heart failure (HF), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and pneumonia (PNE). METHODS AND RESULTS: To examine the contribution of each diagnosis to readmissions penalty size, data were obtained from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, American Hospital Association, and United States Census Bureau including number of cases; readmissions payment adjustment factor (values <1 indicate a penalty for excess readmissions), excess readmission ratio (ERR, or ratio of adjusted predicted readmission based on comorbidities, frailty, and individual patient demographics to expected probability of readmission at an average hospital) for each diagnosis, hospital teaching status, bed number, and zip code socioeconomic status. Of 2,228 hospitals with ≥25 cases per diagnosis, 1,636 received a penalty. Univariate correlation coefficients between penalty and ERR were -0.66, -0.61, and -0.43 for HF, PNE, and AMI, respectively (all P < .001). Correlation between ERRs was greatest for PNE and HF (0.30; P < .001) and weakest for PNE and AMI (0.12; P < .001). In regression analyses, the HF ERR explained the most variance in the penalty (R(2) range 0.21-0.44). CONCLUSION: HF ERR, not the number of cases, was related to penalty magnitude. These findings have implications for the design of hospital-based quality initiatives regarding readmissions.

Lawfulness of preventive recall from a community treatment order.

Preventive recall to hospital of a patient on a community treatment order can be lawful when it is based on a convincing prediction that relapse in illness would otherwise occur. The legislation for England and Wales provides several indications that authorising preventive recall in those circumstances is a purpose of the community treatment order regime.

Applying STAAR interventions in incremental bundles: improving post-CABG surgical patient care.

BACKGROUND: Rehospitalization within 30 days of discharge after coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is a contributing factor to higher-than-acceptable overall hospital readmission rates throughout the United States. CABG rehospitalizations are of such concern that they are specifically targeted for action in 2015 under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010). The phenomenon of increasing readmission rates has prompted the Institute for Healthcare Improvement to devise the Triple Aim initiative and the STate Action on Avoidable Rehospitalizations (STAAR) initiative to reduce 30-day readmission rates nationally. AIMS: This study explored the impact of implementing STAAR interventions delivered as part of a quality improvement project in incremental bundles on 30-day readmission rates and the experience of care in CABG patients. Specifically, the use of the teach-back patient education method and the scheduling of follow-up cardiology appointments prior to discharge using existing staff were examined. METHODS: A quantitative comparative study was conducted with 189 post-CABG patients at a tertiary care facility in the United States over a 2-year period, comparing outcomes between the group of patients prior to implementation of the STAAR interventions and those who later received them. Outcome variables included 30-day readmission rate and patient perception of experience of care. RESULTS: The overall 30-day readmission rate for CABG patients in the postintervention group was decreased to 12.0%, compared to 25.8% in the preintervention group. Of the demographic and health characteristics explored, only chronic lung disease was significantly related to 30-day readmission rates, and only in the postintervention group. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Thirty-day readmission rates among CABG patients can be reduced and the experience of care can be enhanced through the use of targeted interventions utilizing existing staff and resources. The deliberate incremental implementation of bundled initiatives is an effective strategy in reducing 30-day readmissions in post-CABG patients.

Reducing 30-day readmissions: health literacy strategies.

The imperatives of the Affordable Care Act to reduce 30-day readmissions present challenges and opportunities for nurse administrators. The literature suggests success in reducing readmissions through enhancing patient-centered discharge processes, focusing on medication reconciliation, improving coordination with community-based providers, and effective patient self-management of their disease and treatment. Evidence-based interventions addressing low health literacy, when used with all patients, hold promise to promote understanding and self-management. Strategies addressing low health literacy aimed at reducing 30-day readmissions are identified and discussed.

[History of treatment of schizophrenic forensic patients prior to admission: a comparison with schizophrenic general psychiatric patients]. / Prädeliktische Behandlungswege schizophrener Patienten der forensischen Psychiatrie: Ein Vergleich mit schizophrenen Patienten der Allgemeinpsychiatrie.

BACKGROUND: The number of schizophrenic patients admitted to forensic hospitals according to section 63 of the German Criminal Code has increased continuously over the past years. Prior to admission to a forensic ward, two thirds of schizophrenic patients have been admitted to a general psychiatric institution at least once. Among other factors, forensic admission is seen as a consequence of insufficient pretreatment in general psychiatry. This study aims to identify differences regarding the history of treatment of forensic and general psychiatric patients diagnosed with schizophrenia. METHOD: The matched samples include 72 male patients from forensic wards and 72 male patients from general psychiatry diagnosed with schizophrenia. The history of psychiatric treatment was reconstructed by interviewing the patients as well as the outpatient psychiatrists and by analyzing these patients' medical records. RESULTS: Both groups showed similar risk factors, however, forensic patients had a higher number of previous convictions and were convicted more often for violent offences. Furthermore, the data indicate that forensic patients are less integrated into psychiatric care and showed a lower rate of treatment compliance prior to admission to a forensic ward. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide support for the arrangement of an intensive outpatient aftercare, especially for schizophrenic patients with comorbid substance abuse disorders and previous convictions for violent offences.

[Persons held in preventive detention (§ 66 Criminal Code): characteristics of offenders and the impact on prospects for successful completion of therapy]. / Sicherungsverwahrte (§ 66 StGB): Merkmale der Täter und ihre Bedeutung für die Erfolgsaussichten eines therapeutischen Vollzugs.

With its verdict in May 2011 the German Federal Constitutional Court declared the current law for preventive detention unconstitutional and obliged the legislative bodies to undertake a freedom- and treatment-oriented reform. Psychiatrists and psychotherapists are bound to provide therapeutic concepts. Currently there is a lack of information on the intended clientele. In our study we examined 26 persons serving preventive detention, 32 regular prisoners and 29 non-delinquent probands. The groups were matched according to age and intelligence. We gathered sociodemographic data, criminal records and conducted the tests SCID I, SCID II und PCL-R, K-FAF and BIS-11 to obtain diagnoses and characteristics. Based on this information, the HCR-20 and GAF were performed. In comparison to regular prisoners and non-delinquents, the group of those serving preventive detention is characterised by medium to advanced age, antisociality, psychopathy, substance abuse or addiction, aggressivity, a strong criminal record, years of imprisonment, insufficient educational and vocational training and a high risk of recidivism. In our examination of persons serving preventive detention, we demonstrate that this clientele is a group of recidivists difficult to treat. The current laws and a lack of early intervention programs have prevented and delayed their timely and possibly successful treatment. From a psychiatric point of view, there is a strong need for new therapeutic concepts to meet this challenge.

Hospital readmissions: measuring for improvement, accountability, and patients.

The Commonwealth Fund and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement convened 15 experts in May 2013 to help address the current controversy over the measurement of hospital readmissions. Experts agreed that Medicare should, through payment and other means, be encouraging greater coordination of care, improvement in care transitions, and mitigation of risks that leave patients vulnerable to readmission. While the current readmissions metric is undoubtedly an imperfect proxy for broader health system failures, it also provides a valuable foundation on which to build a better policy­one that is useful for improvement, fair for accountability, and above all, relevant to patients.

A focus on heart failure.

Heart failure patients account for a hefty proportion of readmissions, so hospitals are refining their discharge processes, boosting education for patients and caregivers, and sending community health workers to their homes.