Analysis of Clinical Criteria for Discharge Among Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: Development and Validation of a Risk Prediction Model.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 can clinically deteriorate after a period of initial stability, making optimal timing of discharge a clinical and operational challenge. OBJECTIVE: To determine risks for post-discharge readmission and death among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective observational cohort study, 2020-2021, with 30-day follow-up. PARTICIPANTS: Adults admitted for care of COVID-19 respiratory disease between March 2, 2020, and February 11, 2021, to one of 180 US hospitals affiliated with the HCA Healthcare system. MAIN MEASURES: Readmission to or death at an HCA hospital within 30 days of discharge was assessed. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated using an internal validation set (33% of the HCA cohort), and external validation was performed using similar data from six academic centers associated with a hospital medicine research network (HOMERuN). KEY RESULTS: The final HCA cohort included 62,195 patients (mean age 61.9 years, 51.9% male), of whom 4704 (7.6%) were readmitted or died within 30 days of discharge. Independent risk factors for death or readmission included fever within 72 h of discharge; tachypnea, tachycardia, or lack of improvement in oxygen requirement in the last 24 h; lymphopenia or thrombocytopenia at the time of discharge; being ≤ 7 days since first positive test for SARS-CoV-2; HOSPITAL readmission risk score ≥ 5; and several comorbidities. Inpatient treatment with remdesivir or anticoagulation were associated with lower odds. The model's AUC for the internal validation set was 0.73 (95% CI 0.71-0.74) and 0.66 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.67) for the external validation set. CONCLUSIONS: This large retrospective study identified several factors associated with post-discharge readmission or death in models which performed with good discrimination. Patients 7 or fewer days since test positivity and who demonstrate potentially reversible risk factors may benefit from delaying discharge until those risk factors resolve.

Postdischarge Noninvasive Telemonitoring and Nurse Telephone Coaching Improve Outcomes in Heart Failure Patients With High Burden of Comorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive telemonitoring and nurse telephone coaching (NTM-NTC) is a promising postdischarge strategy in heart failure (HF). Comorbid conditions and disease burden influence health outcomes in HF, but how comorbidity burden modulates the effectiveness of NTM-NTC is unknown. This study aims to identify patients with HF who may benefit from postdischarge NTM-NTC based on their burden of comorbidity. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the Better Effectiveness After Transition - Heart Failure trial, patients hospitalized for acute decompensated HF were randomized to postdischarge NTM-NTC or usual care. In this secondary analysis of 1313 patients with complete data, comorbidity burden was assessed by scoring complication and coexisting diagnoses from index admissions. Clinical outcomes included 30-day and 180-day readmissions, mortality, days alive, and combined days alive and out of the hospital. Patients had a mean of 5.7 comorbidities and were stratified into low (0-2), moderate (3-8), and high comorbidity (≥9) subgroups. Increased comorbidity burden was associated with worse outcomes. NTM-NTC was not associated with readmission rates in any comorbidity subgroup. Among high comorbidity patients, NTM-NTC was associated with significantly lower mortality at 30 days (hazard ratio 0.25, 95% confidence interval 0.07-0.90) and 180 days (hazard ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.98), as well as more days alive (160.1 vs 140.3, P = .029) and days alive out of the hospital (152.0 vs 133.2, P = .044) compared with usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Postdischarge NTM-NTC improved survival among patients with HF with a high comorbidity burden. Comorbidity burden may be useful for identifying patients likely to benefit from this management strategy.

Prevalence and Causes of Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Patients Under Investigation for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required clinicians to care for a disease with evolving characteristics while also adhering to care changes (e.g., physical distancing practices) that might lead to diagnostic errors (DEs). OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of DEs and their causes among patients hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Eight medical centers affiliated with the Hospital Medicine ReEngineering Network (HOMERuN). TARGET POPULATION: Adults hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 infection between February and July 2020. MEASUREMENTS: We randomly selected up to 8 cases per site per month for review, with each case reviewed by two clinicians to determine whether a DE (defined as a missed or delayed diagnosis) occurred, and whether any diagnostic process faults took place. We used bivariable statistics to compare patients with and without DE and multivariable models to determine which process faults or patient factors were associated with DEs. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-seven patient charts underwent review, of which 36 (14%) had a diagnostic error. Patients with and without DE were statistically similar in terms of socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, risk factors for COVID-19, and COVID-19 test turnaround time and eventual positivity. Most common diagnostic process faults contributing to DE were problems with clinical assessment, testing choices, history taking, and physical examination (all p < 0.01). Diagnostic process faults associated with policies and procedures related to COVID-19 were not associated with DE risk. Fourteen patients (35.9% of patients with errors and 5.4% overall) suffered harm or death due to diagnostic error. LIMITATIONS: Results are limited by available documentation and do not capture communication between providers and patients. CONCLUSION: Among PUI patients, DEs were common and not associated with pandemic-related care changes, suggesting the importance of more general diagnostic process gaps in error propagation.

Discharge Practices for COVID-19 Patients: Rapid Review of Published Guidance and Synthesis of Documents and Practices at 22 US Academic Medical Centers.

BACKGROUND: There are currently no evidence-based guidelines that provide standardized criteria for the discharge of COVID-19 patients from the hospital. OBJECTIVE: To address this gap in practice guidance, we reviewed published guidance and collected discharge protocols and procedures to identify and synthesize common practices. DESIGN: Rapid review of existing guidance from US and non-US public health organizations and professional societies and qualitative review using content analysis of discharge documents collected from a national sample of US academic medical centers with follow-up survey of hospital leaders SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed 65 websites for major professional societies and public health organizations and collected documents from 22 Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) in the US participating in the HOspital MEdicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN). RESULTS: We synthesized data regarding common practices around 5 major domains: (1) isolation and transmission mitigation; (2) criteria for discharge to non-home settings including skilled nursing, assisted living, or homeless; (3) clinical criteria for discharge including oxygenation levels, fever, and symptom improvement; (4) social support and ability to perform activities of daily living; (5) post-discharge instructions, monitoring, and follow-up. LIMITATIONS: We used streamlined methods for rapid review of published guidance and collected discharge documents only in a focused sample of US academic medical centers. CONCLUSION: AMCs studied showed strong consensus on discharge practices for COVID-19 patients related to post-discharge isolation and transmission mitigation for home and non-home settings. There was high concordance among AMCs that discharge practices should address COVID-19-specific factors in clinical, functional, and post-discharge monitoring domains although definitions and details varied.

Letting a Good Crisis Go to Waste.

The widespread implementation of electronic health records (EHRs) was predicated on hopes that they would rapidly improve care, but initial experiences have been disappointing and thought to be a key part of physician dissatisfaction and burnout. The crisis created by EHR implementation is only in part due to EHRs themselves, and might also be viewed as a crisis that has served to surface longstanding problems in healthcare-ones that if grappled with, will lead to more rapidly effective digital transformation.

Do the unlabeled response categories of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire satisfy the monotonicity assumption of simple-summated scoring?

PURPOSE: Half of the 21-item Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) response categories are labeled (0 = No, 1 = Very little, 5 = Very much) and half are not (2, 3, and 4). We hypothesized that the unlabeled response options would not be more likely to be chosen at some place along the scale continuum than other response options and, therefore, not satisfy the monotonicity assumption of simple-summated scoring. METHODS: We performed exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the MLHFQ items in a sample of 1437 adults in the Better Effectiveness After Transition-Heart Failure study. We evaluated the unlabeled response options using item characteristic curves from item response theory-graded response models for MLHFQ physical and emotional health scales. Then, we examined the impact of collapsing response options on correlations of scale scores with other variables. RESULTS: The sample was 46% female; 71% aged 65 or older; 11% Hispanic, 22% Black, 54% White, and 12% other. The unlabeled response options were rarely chosen. The standard approach to scoring and scores obtained by collapsing adjacent response categories yielded similar associations with other variables, indicating that the existing response options are problematic. CONCLUSIONS: The unlabeled MLHFQ response options do not meet the assumptions of simple-summated scoring. Further assessment of the performance of the unlabeled response options and evaluation of alternative scoring approaches is recommended. Adding labels for response options in future administrations of the MLHFQ should be considered.

Patient Recommendations to Improve the Implementation of and Engagement With Portals in Acute Care: Hospital-Based Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The inclusion of patient portals into electronic health records in the inpatient setting lags behind progress in the outpatient setting. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to understand patient perceptions of using a portal during an episode of acute care and explore patient-perceived barriers and facilitators to portal use during hospitalization. METHODS: We utilized a mixed methods approach to explore patient experiences in using the portal during hospitalization. All patients received a tablet with a brief tutorial, pre- and postuse surveys, and completed in-person semistructured interviews. Qualitative data were coded using thematic analysis to iteratively develop 18 codes that were integrated into 3 themes framed as patient recommendations to hospitals to improve engagement with the portal during acute care. Themes from these qualitative data guided our approach to the analysis of quantitative data. RESULTS: We enrolled 97 participants: 53 (53/97, 55%) women, 44 (44/97, 45%) nonwhite with an average age of 48 years (19-81 years), and the average length of hospitalization was 6.4 days. A total of 47 participants (47/97, 48%) had an active portal account, 59 participants (59/97, 61%) owned a smartphone, and 79 participants (79/97, 81%) accessed the internet daily. In total, 3 overarching themes emerged from the qualitative analysis of interviews with these patients during their hospital stay: (1) hospitals should provide both access to a device and bring-your-own-device platform to access the portal; (2) hospitals should provide an orientation both on how to use the device and how to use the portal; and (3) hospitals should ensure portal content is up to date and easy to understand. CONCLUSIONS: Patients independently and consistently identified basic needs for device and portal access, education, and usability. Hospitals should prioritize these areas to enable successful implementation of inpatient portals to promote greater patient engagement during acute care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00102401; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01970852.

Aspirin Compared with Anticoagulation to Prevent Venous Thromboembolism After Knee or Hip Arthroplasty: a Large Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines now allow the use of aspirin as an alternative to anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after knee or hip arthroplasty, there is limited data on contemporary use and outcomes with aspirin. OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis and to assess venous thromboembolic risk with aspirin compared with anticoagulation after knee or hip arthroplasty. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using data from the US MedAssets database. PATIENTS: Adults with a principal discharge diagnosis of knee or hip arthroplasty between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014. MAIN MEASURES: We identified charges for medications used for thromboprophylaxis within 7 days after the index surgery from billing records. The primary outcome was postoperative venous thromboembolism identified by International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition codes, from the index hospitalization, rehospitalization within 30 days, or during an outpatient visit within 90 days postoperatively. We compared postoperative thromboembolic risk in patients receiving aspirin-only and those receiving anticoagulants using propensity score-adjusted multivariable logistic regression models. KEY RESULTS: We identified 74,234 patients with knee arthroplasty and 36,192 with hip arthroplasty who received pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Aspirin-only was used in 27.9% of all patients, while 24.2% and 24.1% received warfarin or enoxaparin as prophylactic monotherapy, respectively. Postoperative venous thromboembolism occurred in 495 (0.67%) patients undergoing knee arthroplasty and 145 (0.40%) undergoing hip arthroplasty. Aspirin-only was not related to increased odds of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with anticoagulants in multivariable adjusted analyses (odds ratio [OR] 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.87, and OR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.62-1.38 for knee or hip arthroplasty, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: More than a fourth of all patients received aspirin as the sole antithrombotic agent after knee or hip arthroplasty. Postoperative thromboprophylaxis with aspirin-only was not associated with a higher risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with anticoagulants after hip or knee arthroplasty.

Patient stakeholder engagement in research: A narrative review to describe foundational principles and best practice activities.

BACKGROUND: Health research is evolving to include patient stakeholders (patients, families and caregivers) as active members of research teams. Frameworks describing the conceptual foundations underlying this engagement and strategies detailing best practice activities to facilitate engagement have been published to guide these efforts. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this narrative review are to identify, quantify and summarize (a) the conceptual foundational principles of patient stakeholder engagement in research and (b) best practice activities to support these efforts. SEARCH STRATEGY, INCLUSION CRITERIA, DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We accessed a publicly available repository of systematically identified literature related to patient engagement in research. Two reviewers independently screened articles to identify relevant articles and abstracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 990 potentially relevant articles of which 935 (94.4%) were excluded and 55 (5.6%) relevant. The most commonly reported foundational principles were "respect" (n = 25, 45%) and "equitable power between all team members" (n = 21, 38%). Creating "trust between patient stakeholders and researchers" was described in 17 (31%) articles. Twenty-seven (49%) articles emphasized the importance of providing training and education for both patient stakeholder and researchers. Providing financial compensation for patient stakeholders' time and expertise was noted in 19 (35%) articles. Twenty articles (36%) emphasized regular, bidirectional dialogue between patient partners and researchers as important for successful engagement. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Engaging patient stakeholders in research as partners presents an opportunity to design, implement and disseminate patient-centred research. This review creates an overarching foundational framework for authentic and sustainable partnerships between patient stakeholders and researchers.

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.

Preventability of Early Versus Late Hospital Readmissions in a National Cohort of General Medicine Patients.

Background: Many experts believe that hospitals with more frequent readmissions provide lower-quality care, but little is known about how the preventability of readmissions might change over the postdischarge time frame. Objective: To determine whether readmissions within 7 days of discharge differ from those between 8 and 30 days after discharge with respect to preventability. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: 10 academic medical centers in the United States. Patients: 822 adults readmitted to a general medicine service. Measurements: For each readmission, 2 site-specific physician adjudicators used a structured survey instrument to determine whether it was preventable and measured other characteristics. Results: Overall, 36.2% of early readmissions versus 23.0% of late readmissions were preventable (median risk difference, 13.0 percentage points [interquartile range, 5.5 to 26.4 percentage points]). Hospitals were identified as better locations for preventing early readmissions (47.2% vs. 25.5%; median risk difference, 22.8 percentage points [interquartile range, 17.9 to 31.8 percentage points]), whereas outpatient clinics (15.2% vs. 6.6%; median risk difference, 10.0 percentage points [interquartile range, 4.6 to 12.2 percentage points]) and home (19.4% vs. 14.0%; median risk difference, 5.6 percentage points [interquartile range, -6.1 to 17.1 percentage points]) were better for preventing late readmissions. Limitation: Physician adjudicators were not blinded to readmission timing, community hospitals were not included in the study, and readmissions to nonstudy hospitals were not included in the results. Conclusion: Early readmissions were more likely to be preventable and amenable to hospital-based interventions. Late readmissions were less likely to be preventable and were more amenable to ambulatory and home-based interventions. Primary Funding Source: Association of American Medical Colleges.

Patient and Family Advisory Councils for Research: Recruiting and Supporting Members From Diverse and Hard-to-Reach Communities.

OBJECTIVE: To describe strategies to recruit and support members from hard-to-reach groups on research-focused Patient and Family Advisory Councils (PFACs). BACKGROUND: Ensuring diverse representation of members of research PFACs is challenging, and few studies have given attention to addressing this problem. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using 8 focus groups and 19 interviews with 80 PFAC members and leaders, hospital leaders, and researchers. RESULTS: Recruitment recommendations were: 1) utilizing existing networks; 2) going out to the community; 3) accessing outpatient clinics; and 4) using social media. Strategies to support inclusion were: 1) culturally appropriate communication methods; 2) building a sense of community between PFAC members; 3) equalizing roles between community members/leaders; 4) having a diverse PFAC leadership team; and 5) setting transparent expectations for PFAC membership. CONCLUSION: Increasing the diversity of research PFACs is a priority, and it is important to determine how best to engage groups that have been traditionally underrepresented.

Effectiveness of Pediatric Asthma Pathways for Hospitalized Children: A Multicenter, National Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if clinical pathways affect care and outcomes for children hospitalized with asthma using a multicenter study. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective, multicenter cohort study using an administrative database, the Pediatric Health Information System. We evaluated the impact of inpatient pediatric asthma pathways on children age 2-17 years admitted for asthma from 2006 to 2015 in 42 children's hospitals. Date of pathway implementation for each hospital was collected via survey. Using generalized estimating equations with an interrupted time series approach (to account for secular trends), we determined the association of pathway implementation with length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, chest radiograph utilization, ipratropium administration >24 hours, and administration of bronchodilators, systemic steroids, and antibiotics. All analyses were risk-adjusted for patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Clinical pathway implementation was associated with an 8.8% decrease in LOS (95% CI 6.7%-10.9%), 3.1% decrease in hospital costs (95% CI 1.9%-4.3%), increased odds of bronchodilator administration (OR 1.53[1.21-1.95]) and decreased odds of antibiotic administration (OR 0.93[0.87-0.99]) (n = 189 331). We found no associations between pathway implementation and systemic steroid administration, ipratropium administration for >24 hours, chest radiograph utilization, or 30-day readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical pathways can decrease LOS, costs, and unnecessary antibiotic use without increasing rates of readmissions, leading to higher value care.

The HOSPITAL Score Predicts Potentially Preventable 30-Day Readmissions in Conditions Targeted by the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: New tools to accurately identify potentially preventable 30-day readmissions are needed. The HOSPITAL score has been internationally validated for medical inpatients, but its performance in select conditions targeted by the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) is unknown. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Six geographically diverse medical centers. PARTICIPANTS/EXPOSURES: All consecutive adult medical patients discharged alive in 2011 with 1 of the 4 medical conditions targeted by the HRRP (acute myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and heart failure) were included. Potentially preventable 30-day readmissions were identified using the SQLape algorithm. The HOSPITAL score was calculated for all patients. MEASUREMENTS: A multivariable logistic regression model accounting for hospital effects was used to evaluate the accuracy (Brier score), discrimination (c-statistic), and calibration (Pearson goodness-of-fit) of the HOSPITAL score for each 4 medical conditions. RESULTS: Among the 9181 patients included, the overall 30-day potentially preventable readmission rate was 13.6%. Across all 4 diagnoses, the HOSPITAL score had very good accuracy (Brier score of 0.11), good discrimination (c-statistic of 0.68), and excellent calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, P=0.77). Within each diagnosis, performance was similar. In sensitivity analyses, performance was similar for all readmissions (not just potentially preventable) and when restricted to patients age 65 and above. CONCLUSIONS: The HOSPITAL score identifies a high-risk cohort for potentially preventable readmissions in a variety of practice settings, including conditions targeted by the HRRP. It may be a valuable tool when included in interventions to reduce readmissions within or across these conditions.

Physician Perspectives on Factors Contributing to Readmissions and Potential Prevention Strategies: A Multicenter Survey.

BACKGROUND: The transition out of the hospital is a vulnerable time for patients, relying heavily on communication and coordination of resources across care settings. Understanding the perspectives of inpatient and outpatient physicians regarding factors contributing to readmission and potential preventive strategies is crucial in designing appropriately targeted readmission prevention efforts. OBJECTIVE: To examine and compare inpatient and outpatient physician opinions regarding reasons for readmission and interventions that might have prevented readmission. DESIGN: Cross-sectional multicenter study. PARTICIPANTS: We identified patients readmitted to general medicine services within 30 days of discharge at 12 US academic medical centers, and surveyed the primary care physician (PCP), discharging physician from the index admission, and admitting physician from the readmission regarding their endorsement of pre-specified factors contributing to the readmission and potential preventive strategies. MAIN MEASURES: We calculated kappa statistics to gauge agreement between physician dyads (PCP-discharging physician, PCP-admitting physician, and admitting-discharging physician). KEY RESULTS: We evaluated 993 readmission events, which generated responses from 356 PCPs (36 % of readmissions), 675 discharging physicians (68 % of readmissions), and 737 admitting physicians (74 % of readmissions). The most commonly endorsed contributing factors by both PCPs and inpatient physicians related to patient understanding and ability to self-manage. The most commonly endorsed preventive strategies involved providing patients with enhanced post-discharge instructions and/or support. Although PCPs and inpatient physicians endorsed contributing factors and potential preventive strategies with similar frequencies, agreement among the three physicians on the specific factors and/or strategies that applied to individual readmission events was poor (maximum kappa 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Differing opinions among physicians on factors contributing to individual readmissions highlights the importance of communication between inpatient and outpatient providers at discharge to share their different perspectives, and suggests that multi-faceted, broadly applied interventions may be more successful than those that rely on individual providers choosing specific services based on perceived risk factors.

Repeat blood cultures in children with persistent fever and neutropenia: Diagnostic and clinical implications.

BACKGROUND: Repeat blood cultures are frequently obtained in children with persistent fever and neutropenia (FN), but their clinical impact is uncertain. METHODS: We identified children with persistent FN in the context of hematologic malignancy or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation from July 2006 to June 2012. For each episode, we reviewed blood cultures to determine the yield of true positive and false positive results. We then examined episode-level and culture-level predictors to determine factors associated with new bloodstream infections (BSI). RESULTS: Among 135 children who met inclusion criteria, there were 184 persistent FN episodes, during which 17 new BSI were diagnosed after the first 24 hr of fever (9.2%; 95% CI 5.4-15.3%). After the first 24 hr, the incidence of new BSI was 1.5% (95% CI 1.0-2.4%) per day and the incidence of blood culture contamination was 1.1% (95% CI 0.6-2.1%) per day. Of 17 new BSI identified, 14 (82%) required changes in therapy, while all 12 contaminant blood cultures were followed by additional antibiotic therapy. Increased odds of new BSI were associated with a history of BSI within 30 days of the episode (OR 5.18; 95% CI 1.29-20.8) and increasing time between recurrent fevers (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.06-1.57). CONCLUSIONS: Repeat blood cultures have an important role in diagnosing new BSI and directing therapy in children with persistent FN. The current strategy could be improved by reducing the frequency of blood cultures after the first 24 hr, and targeting repeat cultures by risk.

Assessing the impact of nurse post-discharge telephone calls on 30-day hospital readmission rates.

BACKGROUND: Several care transition interventions propose that post-discharge phone calls can reduce adverse events and decrease costly return visits to the hospital. However, given the multi-faceted nature of most care transitions interventions, the true relationship between post-discharge phone calls and readmissions in a real world setting is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of receiving a post-discharge telephone call on all-cause 30-day readmission in a general medicine population. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients discharged home from the Medicine Service at a tertiary care academic medical center between November 2010 and May 2012. INTERVENTION: Patients received two telephone call attempts by a nurse within 72 h of discharge. Nurses followed a standard script to address issues associated with readmission. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Billing data captured readmissions. We used logistic regression-adjusted patient and clinical covariates as well as a propensity score representing likelihood of being called to determine the association between call receipt and risk for readmission. KEY RESULTS: There were 5,507 eligible patients. In unadjusted analyses, patients who received a call and completed the intervention were significantly less likely to be readmitted compared to those who did not [155 (5.8 %) vs 123 (8.6 %), p < 0.01]. In multivariable models adjusting for socio-demographic and clinical covariates alone, completing a post-discharge telephone call intervention was associated with lower odds for readmission (AOR 0.71; 95 % CI: 0.55-0.91). However, when models adjusted for the likelihood of receiving the phone call using the propensity score, no association between call receipt and readmission was observed (AOR 0.91; 95%CI: 0.69-1.20). CONCLUSIONS: Effectiveness of post-discharge phone call programs may be more related to whether patients are able to answer a phone call than to the care delivered by the phone call. Programs would benefit from improving their ability to perform phone outreach while simultaneously improving on the care delivered during the calls.

Sequence patterns in the resolution of clinical instabilities in community-acquired pneumonia and association with outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), indicators of clinical instability at discharge (fever, tachycardia, tachypnea, hypotension, hypoxia, decreased oral intake and altered mental status) are associated with poor outcomes. It is not known whether the order of indicator stabilization is associated with outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To describe variation in the sequences, including whether and in what order, indicators of clinical instability resolve among patients hospitalized with CAP, and to assess associations between patterns of stabilization and patient-level outcomes. DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS / MAIN MEASURES: Chart review ascertained whether and when indicators stabilized and other data for 1,326 adult CAP patients in six U.S. academic medical centers. The sequences of indicator stabilization were characterized using sequence analysis and grouped using cluster analysis. Associations between sequence patterns and 30-day mortality, length of stay (LOS), and total costs were modeled using regression analysis. KEY RESULTS: We found 986 unique sequences of indicator stabilization. Sequence analysis identified eight clusters of sequences (patterns) derived by the order or speed in which instabilities resolved or remained at discharge and inpatient mortality. Two of the clusters (56% of patients) were characterized by almost complete stabilization prior to discharge alive, but differing in the rank orders of four indicators and time to maximum stabilization. Five other clusters (42% of patients) were characterized by one to three instabilities at discharge with variable orderings of indicator stabilization. In models with fast and almost complete stabilization as the referent, 30-day mortality was lowest in clusters with slow and almost complete stabilization or tachycardia or fever at discharge [OR = 0.73, 95% CI = (0.28-1.92)], and highest in those with hypoxia with instabilities in mental status or oral intake at discharge [OR = 3.99, 95% CI = (1.68-9.50)]. CONCLUSIONS: Sequences of clinical instability resolution exhibit great heterogeneity, yet certain sequence patterns may be associated with differences in days to maximum stabilization, mortality, LOS, and hospital costs.

Predictors of completeness of patients' self-reported personal medication lists and discrepancies with clinic medication lists.

BACKGROUND: Transfer of medication information during transitions in care is crucial to preventing medication errors. Few studies evaluate patients' self-reported personal medication lists. OBJECTIVES: To assess completeness of personal medication lists and identify factors associated with incomplete personal lists and discrepancies between personal and clinic medication lists. METHODS: We analyzed patients' personal medication lists at an academic hospital preoperative clinic from January 2010 to October 2010. Completeness of personal medication lists was measured as reporting the name, dose, and frequency for all prescription and nonprescription medications or dietary supplements. Discrepancies between personal and clinic medication lists were measured as omitted medications or differing directions. RESULTS: Among 94 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 82 (87%) personal medication lists were evaluated. Most personal lists were incomplete (56%; 46/82), missing information for at least one medication reported; 94% (77/82) of personal lists had at least one discrepancy with clinic medication lists (median 4 discrepancies per patient list). On multivariate analyses, taking 10 or more medications (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 3.52; 95% CI = 1.37 to 9.08) and being divorced, widowed, or single (adjusted OR = 3.10; 95% CI = 1.05 to 9.12) were independent predictors of incomplete personal medication lists. Taking 10 or more medications (adjusted OR = 3.44; 95% CI = 1.35 to 8.78) was also associated with higher rates of medication discrepancies. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' self-reported personal medication lists are often incomplete and have discrepancies with clinic medication lists. Interventions are needed to improve medication information transfer between patients, providers and healthcare systems.