Manual and automated methods for identifying potentially preventable readmissions: a comparison in a large healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Identification of potentially preventable readmissions is typically accomplished through manual review or automated classification. Little is known about the concordance of these methods. METHODS: We manually reviewed 459 30-day, all-cause readmissions at 18 Kaiser Permanente Northern California hospitals, determining potential preventability through a four-step manual review process that included a chart review tool, interviews with patients, their families, and treating providers, and nurse reviewer and physician evaluation of findings and determination of preventability on a five-point scale. We reassessed the same readmissions with 3 M's Potentially Preventable Readmission (PPR) software. We examined between-method agreement and the specificity and sensitivity of the PPR software using manual review as the reference. RESULTS: Automated classification and manual review respectively identified 78% (358) and 47% (227) of readmissions as potentially preventable. Overall, the methods agreed about the preventability of 56% (258) of readmissions. Using manual review as the reference, the sensitivity of PPR was 85% and specificity was 28%. CONCLUSIONS: Concordance between methods was not high enough to replace manual review with automated classification as the primary method of identifying preventable 30-day, all-cause readmission for quality improvement purposes.

Factors contributing to all-cause 30-day readmissions: a structured case series across 18 hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To understand factors leading to all-cause 30-day readmissions in a community hospital population. RESEARCH DESIGN: Structured case series of 537 readmissions using chart reviews, interviews with treating physicians, patients and family caregivers, and overall case assessment by a nurse-physician team. SETTING: Eighteen Kaiser Permanente Northern California hospitals. RESULTS: Forty-seven percent (250) of readmissions were assessed as potentially preventable; 11% (55) were assessed as very or completely preventable; and 36% (195) as slightly or moderately preventable. On average, 8.7 factors contributed to each potentially preventable readmission. Factors were related to care during the index stay (in 143 cases, 57% of potentially preventable readmissions), the discharge process (168, 67%), and follow-up care (197, 79%). Missed opportunities to prevent readmissions were also related to quality improvement focus areas: transitions care planning and care coordination, clinical care, logistics of follow-up care, advance care planning and end-of-life care, and medication management. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors contributed to potentially preventable readmissions in an integrated health care system with low baseline readmission rates. Reducing all-cause 30-day readmissions may require a comprehensive approach addressing these areas. Future quality improvement efforts and research should identify existing and new tactics that can best prevent readmissions by addressing missed opportunities we identified.

Buccal Fat Pad Augmentation for Facial Rejuvenation.

The buccal space, with its fat pad, is a valuable, overlooked target in facial rejuvenation procedures. The authors identified a specific group of patients who have normal or prominent malar projection in the presence of atrophy of the buccal fat pad, with or without prominent gonial angles. Eight of 24 prospectively studied patients (Biomedical Research Institute of America) who had fat grafts and face lifts received an average of 2.7 ml of fat transferred into the buccal space. Immediate visual correction of the buccal depression was noted. No overcorrection was carried out. None of the eight patients suffered an adverse event from transoral buccal space fat grafting. Persistent facial volume in this area has been noted up to 24 months after treatment. In patients with buccal fat pad atrophy, fat grafting into the buccal space can be safely performed through an intraoral approach.