Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 107–116 | Cite as

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

  • Fabio AgriEmail author
  • Anne-Claude Griesser
  • Estelle Lécureux
  • Pierre Allemann
  • Markus Schäfer
  • Yves Eggli
  • Nicolas Demartines
Original Scientific Report
  • 155 Downloads

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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr Hervé Guillain and Mr Pierre Phedon Tahintzi as well as the medical coding and archiving team of the Lausanne University Medical Center for their participation to the working group.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interests or disclosures.

References

  1. 1.
    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):84–94Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 13:128–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Busato A, von Below G (2010) The implementation of DRG-based hospital reimbursement in Switzerland: a population-based perspective. Health Res Policy Syst 8:31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M™ Potentially Preventable Readmission Grouping Software (2017) http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/849903O/3m-ppr-grouping-software-fact-sheet.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2017
  5. 5.
    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 24:753–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The National Association for the development of quality in hospitals and clinics (2017) www.anq.ch. Accessed 16 Mar 2017
  7. 7.
    Oddone EZ, Weinberger M, Horner M et al (1996) Classifying general medicine readmission—are they preventable? J Gen Intern Med 11:597–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yam CH, Wong EL, Chan FW (2010) Measuring and preventing potentially avoidable hospital readmission: a review of the literature. Hong Kong Med J 16:383–389Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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):407–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clarke A (1990) Are readmissions avoidable? BMJ 301(6761):1136–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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):109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chambers M, Clarke A (1990) Measuring readmission rates. BMJ 301(6761):1134–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goodman DC, Fisher ES, Chang CH (2014) After hospitalization: a Dartmouth atlas report on post-acute care for medicare beneficiaries. http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/downloads/reports/Post_discharge_events_092811.pdf. Accessed May 27 2014
  14. 14.
    Jencks SF, Williams MV, Coleman EA (2009) Rehospitalizations among patients in the medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med 360(14):1418–1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berwick DM, Hackbarth AD (2012) Eliminating waste in US health care. JAMA 307:1513–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    STAAR. Institute for healthcare improvement (2014). State action on avoidable rehospitalizations (STAAR) initiative: applying early evidence and experience in frontline process improvements to develop a state-based strategy. http://www.ihi.org/offerings/initiatives/STAAR/Documents/STAAR_state_based_strategy.pdf. Accessed 9 Jan 2014
  17. 17.
    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):972–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Halfon P, Eggli Y, van Melle G et al (2002) Measuring potentially avoidable hospital readmission. J Clin Epidemiol 55(6):573–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    SQLAPE (2017) http://www.sqlape.com. Accessed Jan 2017
  20. 20.
    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 240:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    ERAS® Society (2017). http://www.erassociety.org. Accessed Apr 2017
  22. 22.
    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):855–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Merkow RP, Ju MH, Chung JW et al (2015) Underlying reasons associated with hospital readmission following surgery in the United Sates. JAMA 313(5):483–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kassin MT, Owen RM, Perez SD et al (2012) Risk factors for 30-day hospital readmission among general surgery patients. J Am Coll Surg 215(3):322–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Burns EM, Rigby E, Mamidanna R et al (2011) Systematic review of discharge coding accuracy. J Public Health 34(1):138–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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):305–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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):299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabio Agri
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Anne-Claude Griesser
    • 2
  • Estelle Lécureux
    • 2
  • Pierre Allemann
    • 1
  • Markus Schäfer
    • 1
  • Yves Eggli
    • 3
  • Nicolas Demartines
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Visceral SurgeryLausanne University HospitalLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Medical DirectionLausanne University HospitalLausanneSwitzerland
  3. 3.Institute for Social and Preventive MedicineLausanne University HospitalLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations