Perspectives on Referral Pathways for Timely Head and Neck Cancer Care.

Importance: Timely diagnosis and treatment are of paramount importance for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) because delays are associated with reduced survival rates and increased recurrence risk. Prompt referral to HNC specialists is crucial for the timeliness of care, yet the factors that affect the referral and triage pathway remain relatively unexplored. Therefore, to identify barriers and facilitators of timely care, it is important to understand the complex journey that patients undertake from the onset of HNC symptoms to referral for diagnosis and treatment. Objective: To investigate the referral and triage process for patients with HNC and identify barriers to and facilitators of care from the perspectives of patients and health care workers. Design, Participants, and Setting: This was a qualitative study using semistructured interviews of patients with HNC and health care workers who care for them. Participants were recruited from June 2022 to July 2023 from HNC clinics at 2 tertiary care academic medical centers in Boston, Massachusetts. Data were analyzed from July 2022 to December 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Themes identified from the perspectives of both patients and health care workers on factors that hinder or facilitate the HNC referral and triage process. Results: In total, 72 participants were interviewed including 42 patients with HNC (median [range] age, 60.5 [19.0-81.0] years; 27 [64%] females) and 30 health care workers (median [range] age, 38.5 [20.0-68.0] years; 23 [77%] females). Using thematic analysis, 4 major themes were identified: the HNC referral and triage pathway is fragmented; primary and dental care are critical for timely referrals; efficient interclinician coordination expedites care; and consistent patient-practitioner engagement alleviates patient fear. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings describe the complex HNC referral and triage pathway, emphasizing the critical role of initial symptom recognition, primary and dental care, patient information flow, and interclinician and patient-practitioner communication, all of which facilitate prompt HNC referrals.

The Association of Standardized Documentation of Serious Illness Conversations With Healthcare Utilization in Hospitalized Patients: A Propensity Score Matched Cohort Analysis.

Background: Serious Illness Conversations (SICs) conducted during hospitalization can lead to meaningful patient participation in the decision-making process affecting medical management. The aim of this study is to determine if standardized documentation of a SIC within an institutionally approved EHR module during hospitalization is associated with palliative care consultation, change in code status, hospice enrollment prior to discharge, and 90-day readmissions. Methods: We conducted retrospective analyses of hospital encounters of general medicine patients at a community teaching hospital affiliated with an academic medical center from October 2018 to August 2019. Encounters with standardized documentation of a SIC were identified and matched by propensity score to control encounters without a SIC in a ratio of 1:3. We used multivariable, paired logistic regression and Cox proportional-hazards modeling to assess key outcomes. Results: Of 6853 encounters (5143 patients), 59 (.86%) encounters (59 patients) had standardized documentation of a SIC, and 58 (.85%) were matched to 167 control encounters (167 patients). Encounters with standardized documentation of a SIC had greater odds of palliative care consultation (odds ratio [OR] 60.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.45-290.08, P < .01), a documented code status change (OR 8.04, 95% CI 1.54-42.05, P = .01), and discharge with hospice services (OR 35.07, 95% CI 5.80-212.08, P < .01) compared to matched controls. There was no significant association with 90-day readmissions (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] .88, standard error [SE] .37, P = .73). Conclusions: Standardized documentation of a SIC during hospitalization is associated with palliative care consultation, change in code status, and hospice enrollment.

Implementation of a standardised accept note to improve communication during inter-hospital transfer: a prospective cohort study.

IMPORTANCE: The transfer of patients between hospitals (interhospital transfer, IHT), exposes patients to communication errors and gaps in information exchange. OBJECTIVE: To design and implement a standardised accept note to improve communication during medical service transfers, and evaluate its impact on patient outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective interventional cohort study. SETTING: A 792-bed tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: All patient transfers from any acute care hospital to the general medicine, cardiology, oncology and intensive care unit (ICU) services between August 2020 and June 2022. INTERVENTIONS: A standardised accept note template was developed over a 9-month period with key stakeholder input and embedded in the electronic health record, completed by nurses within the hospital's Access Centre. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome was clinician-reported medical errors collected via surveys of admitting clinicians within 72 hours after IHT patient admission. Secondary outcomes included clinician-reported failures in communication; presence and 'timeliness' of accept note documentation; patient length of stay (LOS) after transfer; rapid response or ICU transfer within 24 hours and in-hospital mortality. All outcomes were analysed postintervention versus preintervention, adjusting for patient demographics, diagnosis, comorbidity, illness severity, admitting service, time of year, hospital COVID census and census of admitting service and admitting team on date of admission. RESULTS: Of the 1004 and 654 IHT patients during preintervention and postintervention periods, surveys were collected on 735 (73.2%) and 462 (70.6%), respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar among patients in each time period and between survey responders and non-responders. Adjusted analyses demonstrated a 27% reduction in clinician-reported medical error rates postimplementation versus preimplementation (11.5 vs 15.8, adjusted OR (aOR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99). Secondary outcomes demonstrated lower adjusted odds of clinician-reported failures in communication (aOR 0.88; 0.78 to 0.98) and rapid response/ICU transfer (aOR 0.57; 0.34 to 0.97), and improved presence (aOR 2.30; 1.75 to 3.02) and timeliness (-21.4 hours vs -8.7 hours, p<0.001) of accept note documentation. There were no significant differences in LOS or mortality. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among 1658 medical patient transfers, implementing a standardised accept note was associated with improved presence and timeliness of accept note documentation, clinician-reported medical errors, failures in communication and clinical decline following transfer, suggesting that improving communication during IHT can improve patient outcomes.

Analyzing diagnostic errors in the acute setting: a process-driven approach.

OBJECTIVES: We describe an approach for analyzing failures in diagnostic processes in a small, enriched cohort of general medicine patients who expired during hospitalization and experienced medical error. Our objective was to delineate a systematic strategy for identifying frequent and significant failures in the diagnostic process to inform strategies for preventing adverse events due to diagnostic error. METHODS: Two clinicians independently reviewed detailed records of purposively sampled cases identified from established institutional case review forums and assessed the likelihood of diagnostic error using the Safer Dx instrument. Each reviewer used the modified Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research (DEER) taxonomy, revised for acute care (41 possible failure points across six process dimensions), to characterize the frequency of failure points (FPs) and significant FPs in the diagnostic process. RESULTS: Of 166 cases with medical error, 16 were sampled: 13 (81.3%) had one or more diagnostic error(s), and a total of 113 FPs and 30 significant FPs were identified. A majority of significant FPs (63.3%) occurred in "Diagnostic Information and Patient Follow-up" and "Patient and Provider Encounter and Initial Assessment" process dimensions. Fourteen (87.5%) cases had a significant FP in at least one of these dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Failures in the diagnostic process occurred across multiple dimensions in our purposively sampled cohort. A systematic analytic approach incorporating the modified DEER taxonomy, revised for acute care, offered critical insights into key failures in the diagnostic process that could serve as potential targets for preventative interventions.

Tools and tactics for postdischarge medication management interventions.

PURPOSE: To identify interventions for organizational pharmacist-leaders and frontline pharmacy staff to optimize peri- and postdischarge medication management. SUMMARY: An evidence-based toolkit was systematically constructed on the basis of findings of 3 systematic overviews of systematic reviews. The interventions were reviewed by a technical expert panel and categorized as either tools or tactics. The identified tools are instruments such as diagrams, flow charts, lists, tables, and templates used in performing a distinct operation, whereas identified tactics reflect broader methods (eg, reduced dosing frequency). Tools and tactics were chosen on the basis of their potential to improve postdischarge medication management, with a focus on interventions led by pharmacy staff that may reduce hospital readmissions among older, sicker patients. Overall, 23 tools and 2 tactics were identified. The identified tools include items such as education, text messaging, and phone calls. The tactics identified are dose simplification and monetary incentives. Practical information has also been provided to facilitate implementation. CONCLUSION: Several tools and tactics are available to optimize peri- and postdischarge medication management. Organizational pharmacist-leaders and frontline pharmacy staff can implement these interventions to improve patient outcomes.

30-Day Potentially Avoidable Readmissions Due to Adverse Drug Events.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the patterns of potentially avoidable readmissions due to adverse drug events (ADEs) to identify the most appropriate risk reduction interventions. METHODS: In this observational study, we analyzed a random sample of 534 potentially avoidable 30-day readmissions from 10,275 consecutive discharges from the medical department of an academic hospital. Readmissions due to ADEs were reviewed to identify the causative drugs and the severity and interventions to prevent them. RESULTS: Seventy cases (13.1%) of readmission were partially or predominantly due to ADEs, of which, 58 (82.9%) were serious ADEs. Overall, 65 (92.9%) of the ADEs have been confirmed to be preventable. Inappropriate prescribing was identified as the cause of ADE in 34 cases (48.6%) mainly involving diuretics, analgesics, or antithrombotics: misprescribing n = 19 (27.1%), underprescribing n = 8 (11.4%), and overprescribing n = 7 (10.0%). The remaining half of preventable ADEs (n = 36; 51.4%) were related to suboptimal patient monitoring/education, such as adherence issues (n = 6; 8.6%) or lack of monitoring (n = 31; 44.3%). In 64 cases (91.4%), the readmission could have been potentially prevented by better monitoring for drug efficacy/disease control, or for predictable side effect. Thirty-three (97.1%) of the 34 ADEs due to inappropriate prescribing could have also been prevented by better monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse drug events accounted for approximately 13% of 30-day preventable readmissions. A half were due to prescription errors involving mainly diuretics, analgesics, or antithrombotics, and the other half were due to suboptimal patient monitoring/education, most frequently with antineoplastics. Both these avoidable causes may represent opportunities to reduce the total drug-related adverse events.

Patient and Physician Experience with Interhospital Transfer: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: Although existing data suggest marked variability in interhospital transfer (IHT), little is known about specific factors that may impact the quality and safety of this care transition. We aimed to explore transferred patients' and involved physicians' experience with IHT to better understand the components of the transfer continuum and identify potential targets for improvement. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study using individual interviews of adult patients recently transferred to cardiology, general medicine, and oncology services at a tertiary care academic medical center, as well as their transferring physician, accepting attending physician, and accepting/admitting resident physician. We conducted a thematic analysis, using an inductive approach and an a priori framework from pre-established domains. RESULTS: Participants included 10 hospitalized adults (6 cardiology, 2 general medicine, and 2 oncology), 9 accepting attending physicians, 12 accepting and/or admitting resident physicians, and 5 transferring physicians (N = 36). Emergent themes demonstrated that participants held a shared understanding of the reason for transfer (most commonly access to more specialized care), and relayed a general dissatisfaction regarding the timing and lack of advanced notification of transfer. We also found distinct differences in IHT experience by stakeholder group: physician participants relayed discontent with intrahospital chains of communication and interhospital information exchange, and patient participants focused more readily on the physical aspects of IHT. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers insight into IHT from the perspective of those most affected by this process, thereby identifying potential targets in addressing the quality and safety of this transition.

The Burden of Opioid-Related Adverse Drug Events on Hospitalized Previously Opioid-Free Surgical Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Opioid analgesics are a mainstay for acute pain management, but postoperative opioid administration has risks. We examined the prevalence, risk factors, and consequences of opioid-related adverse drug events (ORADEs) in a previously opioid-free surgical population. METHODS: A retrospective, observational, cohort study using administrative, billing, clinical, and medication administration data from two hospitals. Data were collected for all adult patients who were opioid-free at admission, underwent surgery between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2016, and received postoperative opioids. Potential ORADEs were determined based on inpatient billing codes or postoperative administration of naloxone. We determined independent predictors of ORADE development using multivariable logistic regression. We measured adjusted inpatient mortality, hospital costs, length of hospital stay, discharge destination, and readmission within 30 days for patients with and without ORADEs. RESULTS: Among 13,389 hospitalizations where opioid-free patients had a single qualifying surgery, 12,218 (91%) received postoperative opioids and comprised the study cohort. Of these, we identified 1111 (9.1%) with a potential ORADE. Independent predictors of ORADEs included older age, several markers of disease severity, longer surgeries, and concurrent benzodiazepine use. Opioid-related adverse drug events were strongly associated with the route and duration of opioids administered postoperatively: 18% increased odds per day on intravenous opioids. In analyses adjusted for several covariates, presence of an ORADE was associated with 32% higher costs of hospitalization, 45% longer postoperative length of stay, 36% lower odds of discharge home, and 2.2 times the odds of death. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a high rate and severe consequences of potential ORADEs in previously opioid-free patients receiving postoperative opioids. Knowledge of risk factors and predictors of ORADEs can help develop targeted interventions to minimize the development of these potentially dangerous and costly events.

Association of patterns of multimorbidity with length of stay: A multinational observational study.

The aim of this study was to identify the combinations of chronic comorbidities associated with length of stay (LOS) among multimorbid medical inpatients.Multinational retrospective cohort of 126,828 medical inpatients with multimorbidity, defined as ≥2 chronic diseases (data collection: 2010-2011). We categorized the chronic diseases into comorbidities using the Clinical Classification Software. We described the 20 combinations of comorbidities with the strongest association with prolonged LOS, defined as longer than or equal to country-specific LOS, and reported the difference in median LOS for those combinations. We also assessed the association between the number of diseases or body systems involved and prolonged LOS.The strongest association with prolonged LOS (odds ratio [OR] 7.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.64-7.91, P < 0.001) and the highest difference in median LOS (13 days, 95% CI 12.8-13.2, P < 0.001) were found for the combination of diseases of white blood cells and hematological malignancy. Other comorbidities found in the 20 top combinations had ORs between 2.37 and 3.65 (all with P < 0.001) and a difference in median LOS of 2 to 5 days (all with P < 0.001), and included mostly neurological disorders and chronic ulcer of skin. Prolonged LOS was associated with the number of chronic diseases and particularly with the number of body systems involved (≥7 body systems: OR 21.50, 95% CI 19.94-23.18, P < 0.001).LOS was strongly associated with specific combinations of comorbidities and particularly with the number of body systems involved. Describing patterns of multimorbidity associated with LOS may help hospitals anticipate resource utilization and judiciously allocate services to shorten LOS.

Use, Perceived Usability, and Barriers to Implementation of a Patient Safety Dashboard Integrated within a Vendor EHR.

BACKGROUND: Preventable adverse events continue to be a threat to hospitalized patients. Clinical decision support in the form of dashboards may improve compliance with evidence-based safety practices. However, limited research describes providers' experiences with dashboards integrated into vendor electronic health record (EHR) systems. OBJECTIVE: This study was aimed to describe providers' use and perceived usability of the Patient Safety Dashboard and discuss barriers and facilitators to implementation. METHODS: The Patient Safety Dashboard was implemented in a cluster-randomized stepped wedge trial on 12 units in neurology, oncology, and general medicine services over an 18-month period. Use of the Dashboard was tracked during the implementation period and analyzed in-depth for two 1-week periods to gather a detailed representation of use. Providers' perceptions of tool usability were measured using the Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale (rated 1-5). Research assistants conducted field observations throughout the duration of the study to describe use and provide insight into tool adoption. RESULTS: The Dashboard was used 70% of days the tool was available, with use varying by role, service, and time of day. On general medicine units, nurses logged in throughout the day, with many logins occurring during morning rounds, when not rounding with the care team. Prescribers logged in typically before and after morning rounds. On neurology units, physician assistants accounted for most logins, accessing the Dashboard during daily brief interdisciplinary rounding sessions. Use on oncology units was rare. Satisfaction with the tool was highest for perceived ease of use, with attendings giving the highest rating (4.23). The overall lowest rating was for quality of work life, with nurses rating the tool lowest (2.88). CONCLUSION: This mixed methods analysis provides insight into the use and usability of a dashboard tool integrated within a vendor EHR and can guide future improvements and more successful implementation of these types of tools.

A systematic overview of systematic reviews evaluating interventions addressing polypharmacy.

PURPOSE: To systematically evaluate and summarize evidence across multiple systematic reviews (SRs) examining interventions addressing polypharmacy. SUMMARY: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) were searched for SRs evaluating interventions addressing polypharmacy in adults published from January 2004 to February 2017. Two authors independently screened, appraised, and extracted information. SRs with Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scores below 8 were excluded. After extraction of relevant conclusions from each SR, evidence was summarized and conclusions compared. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess evidence quality. Six SRs met the inclusion criteria, 4 of which used meta-analytic pooling. Five SRs focused on older adults. Four were not restricted to any specific disease type, whereas 1 focused on proton pump inhibitors and another focused on patients with severe dementia. Care settings and measured outcomes varied widely. SRs examining the impact on patient-centered outcomes, including morbidity, mortality, patient satisfaction, and utilization, found inconsistent evidence regarding the benefit of polypharmacy interventions, but most concluded that interventions had either null or uncertain impact. Two SRs assessing medication appropriateness found very low-quality evidence of modest improvements with polypharmacy interventions. CONCLUSION: An overview of SRs of interventions to address polypharmacy found 6 recent and high-quality SRs, mostly focused on older adults, in which both process and outcome measures were used to evaluate interventions. Despite the low quality of evidence in the underlying primary studies, both SRs that assessed medication appropriateness found evidence that polypharmacy interventions improved it. However, there was no consistent evidence of any impact on downstream patient-centered outcomes such as healthcare utilization, morbidity, or mortality.

Patterns of multimorbidity associated with 30-day readmission: a multinational study.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is associated with higher healthcare utilization; however, data exploring its association with readmission are scarce. We aimed to investigate which most important patterns of multimorbidity are associated with 30-day readmission. METHODS: We used a multinational retrospective cohort of 126,828 medical inpatients with multimorbidity defined as ≥2 chronic diseases. The primary and secondary outcomes were 30-day potentially avoidable readmission (PAR) and 30-day all-cause readmission (ACR), respectively. Only chronic diseases were included in the analyses. We presented the OR for readmission according to the number of diseases or body systems involved, and the combinations of diseases categories with the highest OR for readmission. RESULTS: Multimorbidity severity, assessed as number of chronic diseases or body systems involved, was strongly associated with PAR, and to a lesser extend with ACR. The strength of association steadily and linearly increased with each additional disease or body system involved. Patients with four body systems involved or nine diseases already had a more than doubled odds for PAR (OR 2.35, 95%CI 2.15-2.57, and OR 2.25, 95%CI 2.05-2.48, respectively). The combinations of diseases categories that were most strongly associated with PAR and ACR were chronic kidney disease with liver disease or chronic ulcer of skin, and hematological malignancy with esophageal disorders or mood disorders, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Readmission was associated with the number of chronic diseases or body systems involved and with specific combinations of diseases categories. The number of body systems involved may be a particularly interesting measure of the risk for readmission in multimorbid patients.

I-PASS Mentored Implementation Handoff Curriculum: Champion Training Materials.

Introduction: The I-PASS Handoff Program is a comprehensive handoff curriculum that has been shown to decrease rates of medical errors and adverse events during patient handoffs. I-PASS champions are a critical part of the implementation and sustainment of this curriculum, and therefore, a rigorous program to support their training is necessary. Methods: The I-PASS Handoff champion training materials were created for the original I-PASS Study and adapted for the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) I-PASS Mentored Implementation Program. The adapted materials embrace a flipped classroom approach and adult learning theory. The training includes an overview of I-PASS handoff techniques, an opportunity to practice evaluating handoffs with the I-PASS observation tools using a handoff video vignette, and other key implementation principles. Results: As part of the SHM I-PASS Mentored Implementation Program, 366 champions were trained at 32 sites across North America and participated in a total of 3,491 handoff observations. A total of 346 champions completed the I-PASS Champion Workshop evaluation form at the end of their training (response rate: 94.5%). After receiving the training, over 90% agreed/strongly agreed that it provided them with knowledge or skills critical to their patient care activities and that they were able to distinguish the difference between high- and poor-quality handoffs, competently use the I-PASS handoff assessment tools, and articulate the importance of handoff observations. Conclusion: The I-PASS champion training materials were rated highly by those trained and are an integral part of a successful I-PASS Handoff Program implementation.

Physician Perspectives on Interhospital Transfers.

OBJECTIVE: The transfer of patients between acute care hospitals (interhospital transfer [IHT]) is a common but nonstandardized process leading to variable quality and safety. The goal of this study was to survey accepting physicians regarding problems encountered in the transfer process. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of residents and inpatient attendings from internal medicine, neurology, and surgery services at a large tertiary care referral hospital was undertaken to identify problematic aspects of the IHT process as perceived by accepting frontline providers. The frequency that specific scenarios were encountered in caring for transferred patients and whether these processes impacted patient safety were determined using 5- and 3-point Likert scales, respectively. The frequency of responses to each question were measured using proportions. RESULTS: Approximately 51% of the 284 physicians surveyed responded. Pertinent findings included the following: physician subject surveys found that transferred patients sometimes, frequently, or always arrived without requiring specialized care in 56% of responses, arrived with unrealistic expectations of care in 77.2% of responses, arrived more than 24 hours after accepted for transfer in 80.1% of responses, and arrived without necessary transfer records in 86.9% of responses. Most respondents felt that lack of availability of transfer records and the time of day of arrival frequently posed a risk to transferred patients (57.2% and 53.1%, respectively). Response variation was noted between resident and attending physician respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Expectations of care, delays and timing of transfer, and information exchange at time of transfer were identified as all too common problems in IHT, which creates a risk for patient safety. These areas are important targets for investigation and the development of interventions to improve patient safety.

Simplification of the HOSPITAL score for predicting 30-day readmissions.

OBJECTIVE: The HOSPITAL score has been widely validated and accurately identifies high-risk patients who may mostly benefit from transition care interventions. Although this score is easy to use, it has the potential to be simplified without impacting its performance. We aimed to validate a simplified version of the HOSPITAL score for predicting patients likely to be readmitted. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective study in 9 large hospitals across 4 countries, from January through December 2011. PARTICIPANTS: We included all consecutively discharged medical patients. We excluded patients who died before discharge or were transferred to another acute care facility. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was any 30-day potentially avoidable readmission. We simplified the score as follows: (1) 'discharge from an oncology division' was replaced by 'cancer diagnosis or discharge from an oncology division'; (2) 'any procedure' was left out; (3) patients were categorised into two risk groups (unlikely and likely to be readmitted). The performance of the simplified HOSPITAL score was evaluated according to its overall accuracy, its discriminatory power and its calibration. RESULTS: Thirty-day potentially avoidable readmission rate was 9.7% (n=11 307/117 065 patients discharged). Median of the simplified HOSPITAL score was 3 points (IQR 2-5). Overall accuracy was very good with a Brier score of 0.08 and discriminatory power remained good with a C-statistic of 0.69 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.69). The calibration was excellent when comparing the expected with the observed risk in the two risk categories. CONCLUSIONS: The simplified HOSPITAL score has good performance for predicting 30-day readmission. Prognostic accuracy was similar to the original version, while its use is even easier. This simplified score may provide a good alternative to the original score depending on the setting.

Risk Factors and Patterns of Potentially Avoidable Readmission in Patients With Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer are particularly at risk for readmission within 30-days after discharge. To identify the patients who might benefit from more-intensive discharge interventions, we identified the risk factors associated with 30-day potentially avoidable readmissions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We included all consecutive discharges from the oncology division of an academic tertiary medical center in Boston, Massachusetts, between July 1, 2009, and June 30, 2010. Potentially avoidable 30-day readmissions to the index hospital and two other hospitals within its network were identified. We performed a multivariable logistic regression in which the final model included variables found in bivariable testing to be significantly associated with the outcome. RESULTS: Among the 2,916 patients discharged during the study period, 1,086 (37.3%) were readmitted within 30 days. Of these, 341 (31.4% of all readmissions, 11.7% of all discharges) were identified as potentially avoidable. In the multivariable analysis, the following patient factors were associated with a significantly higher risk of a potentially avoidable readmission: total number of medications at discharge, liver disease, last sodium level, and last hemoglobin level before discharge. In addition, potentially avoidable readmissions occurred significantly earlier than unavoidable readmissions (median, 10 v 13 days; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Almost 40% of patients with cancer had a 30-day readmission, and almost one third of these were deemed potentially avoidable, and several risk factors for this were identified. Interventions at discharge may be prioritized to patients with these risk factors.

International Validity of the HOSPITAL Score to Predict 30-Day Potentially Avoidable Hospital Readmissions.

IMPORTANCE: Identification of patients at a high risk of potentially avoidable readmission allows hospitals to efficiently direct additional care transitions services to the patients most likely to benefit. OBJECTIVE: To externally validate the HOSPITAL score in an international multicenter study to assess its generalizability. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: International retrospective cohort study of 117 065 adult patients consecutively discharged alive from the medical department of 9 large hospitals across 4 different countries between January 2011 and December 2011. Patients transferred to another acute care facility were excluded. EXPOSURES: The HOSPITAL score includes the following predictors at discharge: hemoglobin, discharge from an oncology service, sodium level, procedure during the index admission, index type of admission (urgent), number of admissions during the last 12 months, and length of stay. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: 30-day potentially avoidable readmission to the index hospital using the SQLape algorithm. RESULTS: Overall, 117 065 adults consecutively discharged alive from a medical department between January 2011 and December 2011 were studied. Of all medical discharges, 16 992 of 117 065 (14.5%) were followed by a 30-day readmission, and 11 307 (9.7%) were followed by a 30-day potentially avoidable readmission. The discriminatory power of the HOSPITAL score to predict potentially avoidable readmission was good, with a C statistic of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.72-0.72). As in the derivation study, patients were classified into 3 risk categories: low (n = 73 031 [62.4%]), intermediate (n = 27 612 [23.6%]), and high risk (n = 16 422 [14.0%]). The estimated proportions of potentially avoidable readmission for each risk category matched the observed proportion, resulting in an excellent calibration (Pearson χ2 test P = .89). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The HOSPITAL score identified patients at high risk of 30-day potentially avoidable readmission with moderately high discrimination and excellent calibration when applied to a large international multicenter cohort of medical patients. This score has the potential to easily identify patients in need of more intensive transitional care interventions to prevent avoidable hospital readmissions.

Refractory primary medication nonadherence: Prevalence and predictors after pharmacist counseling at hospital discharge.

Successful secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease relies on medication therapy; thus, minimizing nonadherence is a focus for improving patient outcomes. Receipt of discharge medication counseling has been associated with improved drug knowledge and adherence. We evaluated the prevalence and predictors of postdischarge primary nonadherence (not filling new prescriptions) in patients who received discharge medication counseling by a pharmacist (ie, refractory to intervention) as part of a randomized controlled trial. Of 341 patients, 9.4% of patients did not fill all prescriptions after discharge. Patients who were living alone were more likely to not fill their medications compared to those who were married or cohabitating (odds ratio [OR]: 2.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-4.8, P = 0.047). Patients who were discharged with greater than 10 medications were also more likely to demonstrate primary nonadherence (OR: 2.3, 95% CI: 1.05-4.98, P = 0.036). Patients with lower income were less likely to fill prescriptions in univariate analysis (P = 0.04) but not multivariable analysis. Our study demonstrates that among patients hospitalized for acute cardiovascular events, primary medication nonadherence persisted despite discharge medication counseling. Targeted or multimodal approaches that address patient-specific barriers, such as cost, social isolation, and polypharmacy, in addition to discharge counseling, may further facilitate adherence.