Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Surgery 1/2019

01-01-2019 | Original Scientific Report

Assessment of Avoidable Readmissions in a Visceral Surgery Department with an Algorithm: Methodology, Analysis and Measures for Improvement

Authors: Fabio Agri, Anne-Claude Griesser, Estelle Lécureux, Pierre Allemann, Markus Schäfer, Yves Eggli, Nicolas Demartines

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Standardized quality indicators assessing avoidable readmission become increasingly important in health care. They can identify improvements area and contribute to enhance the care delivered. However, the way of using them in practice was rarely described.

Methods

Retrospective study uses prospective inpatients’ information. Thirty-day readmissions were deemed potentially avoidable or non-avoidable by a computerized algorithm, and annual rate was reported between 2010 and 2014. Observed rate was compared to expected rate, and medical record review of potentially avoidable readmissions was conducted on data between January and June 2014.

Results

During a period of ten semesters, 11,011 stays were screened by the algorithm and a potentially avoidable readmission rate (PAR) of 7% was measured. Despite stable expected rate of 5 ± 0.5%, an increase was noted concerning the observed rate since 2012, with a highest value of 9.4% during the first semester 2014. Medical chart review assessed the 109 patients screened positive for PAR during this period and measured a real rate of 7.8%. The delta was in part due to an underestimated case mix owing to sub-coded comorbidities and not to health care issue.

Conclusions

The present study suggests a methodology for practical use of data, allowing a validated quality of care indicator. The trend of the observed PAR rate showed a clear increase, while the expected PAR rate was stable. The analysis emphasized the importance of adequate “coding chain” when such an algorithm is applied. Moreover, additional medical chart review is needed when results deviate from the norm.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Rosenberg MA, Browne MJ (2001) The impact of the inpatient prospective payment system and diagnosis-related groups: a survey of the literature. NAAJ 5(4):84–94 Rosenberg MA, Browne MJ (2001) The impact of the inpatient prospective payment system and diagnosis-related groups: a survey of the literature. NAAJ 5(4):84–94
2.
go back to reference Böcking W, Ahrens U, Kirch W et al (2005) First results of the introduction of DRGs in Germany and overview of experience from other DRG countries. J Public Health 13:128–137CrossRef Böcking W, Ahrens U, Kirch W et al (2005) First results of the introduction of DRGs in Germany and overview of experience from other DRG countries. J Public Health 13:128–137CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Busato A, von Below G (2010) The implementation of DRG-based hospital reimbursement in Switzerland: a population-based perspective. Health Res Policy Syst 8:31CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Busato A, von Below G (2010) The implementation of DRG-based hospital reimbursement in Switzerland: a population-based perspective. Health Res Policy Syst 8:31CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Borzecki AM, Chen Q, Restuccia J et al (2015) Do pneumonia readmissions flagged as potentially preventable by the 3 M PPR software have more process of care problems? A cross-sectional observational study. BMJ Qual Saf 24:753–763CrossRefPubMed Borzecki AM, Chen Q, Restuccia J et al (2015) Do pneumonia readmissions flagged as potentially preventable by the 3 M PPR software have more process of care problems? A cross-sectional observational study. BMJ Qual Saf 24:753–763CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference The National Association for the development of quality in hospitals and clinics (2017) www.anq.ch. Accessed 16 Mar 2017 The National Association for the development of quality in hospitals and clinics (2017) www.​anq.​ch. Accessed 16 Mar 2017
7.
go back to reference Oddone EZ, Weinberger M, Horner M et al (1996) Classifying general medicine readmission—are they preventable? J Gen Intern Med 11:597–607CrossRefPubMed Oddone EZ, Weinberger M, Horner M et al (1996) Classifying general medicine readmission—are they preventable? J Gen Intern Med 11:597–607CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Yam CH, Wong EL, Chan FW (2010) Measuring and preventing potentially avoidable hospital readmission: a review of the literature. Hong Kong Med J 16:383–389PubMed Yam CH, Wong EL, Chan FW (2010) Measuring and preventing potentially avoidable hospital readmission: a review of the literature. Hong Kong Med J 16:383–389PubMed
9.
go back to reference Howard-Anderson J, Busuttil A, Lonowski S et al (2016) From discharge to readmission: understanding the process from the patient perspective. J Hosp Med 11(6):407–412CrossRefPubMed Howard-Anderson J, Busuttil A, Lonowski S et al (2016) From discharge to readmission: understanding the process from the patient perspective. J Hosp Med 11(6):407–412CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Henderson J, Graveney MJ, Goldacre MJ (1993) Should emergency readmission be used as health service indicators and in medical audit? Health Serv Manag Res 6(2):109–116CrossRef Henderson J, Graveney MJ, Goldacre MJ (1993) Should emergency readmission be used as health service indicators and in medical audit? Health Serv Manag Res 6(2):109–116CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Jencks SF, Williams MV, Coleman EA (2009) Rehospitalizations among patients in the medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med 360(14):1418–1428CrossRefPubMed Jencks SF, Williams MV, Coleman EA (2009) Rehospitalizations among patients in the medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med 360(14):1418–1428CrossRefPubMed
15.
17.
go back to reference Halfon P, Eggli Y, Prêtre-Rohrbach I et al (2006) Validation of the potentially avoidable hospital readmission rate as a routine indicator of the quality of hospital care. Med Care 44(11):972–981CrossRefPubMed Halfon P, Eggli Y, Prêtre-Rohrbach I et al (2006) Validation of the potentially avoidable hospital readmission rate as a routine indicator of the quality of hospital care. Med Care 44(11):972–981CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Halfon P, Eggli Y, van Melle G et al (2002) Measuring potentially avoidable hospital readmission. J Clin Epidemiol 55(6):573–587CrossRefPubMed Halfon P, Eggli Y, van Melle G et al (2002) Measuring potentially avoidable hospital readmission. J Clin Epidemiol 55(6):573–587CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of complications. A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of complications. A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference McIntyre LK, Arbabi S, Robinson EF et al (2016) Analysis of risk factors for patient readmission 30 days following discharge from general surgery. JAMA Surg 151(9):855–861CrossRefPubMed McIntyre LK, Arbabi S, Robinson EF et al (2016) Analysis of risk factors for patient readmission 30 days following discharge from general surgery. JAMA Surg 151(9):855–861CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Merkow RP, Ju MH, Chung JW et al (2015) Underlying reasons associated with hospital readmission following surgery in the United Sates. JAMA 313(5):483–495CrossRefPubMed Merkow RP, Ju MH, Chung JW et al (2015) Underlying reasons associated with hospital readmission following surgery in the United Sates. JAMA 313(5):483–495CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
go back to reference Burns EM, Rigby E, Mamidanna R et al (2011) Systematic review of discharge coding accuracy. J Public Health 34(1):138–148CrossRef Burns EM, Rigby E, Mamidanna R et al (2011) Systematic review of discharge coding accuracy. J Public Health 34(1):138–148CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Maass C, Kuske S, Lessing C et al (2015) Are administrative data valid when measuring patient safety in hospitals? A comparison of data collection methods using a chart review and administrative data. Int J Qual Health Care 27(4):305–313CrossRefPubMed Maass C, Kuske S, Lessing C et al (2015) Are administrative data valid when measuring patient safety in hospitals? A comparison of data collection methods using a chart review and administrative data. Int J Qual Health Care 27(4):305–313CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Bates DW, Cohen M, Leape LL et al (2001) Reducing the frequency of errors in medicine using information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 8(4):299–308CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bates DW, Cohen M, Leape LL et al (2001) Reducing the frequency of errors in medicine using information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 8(4):299–308CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Assessment of Avoidable Readmissions in a Visceral Surgery Department with an Algorithm: Methodology, Analysis and Measures for Improvement
Authors
Fabio Agri
Anne-Claude Griesser
Estelle Lécureux
Pierre Allemann
Markus Schäfer
Yves Eggli
Nicolas Demartines
Publication date
01-01-2019
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
World Journal of Surgery / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-018-4755-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

World Journal of Surgery 1/2019 Go to the issue