IDENTIFICATION OF PATIENTS AT-RISK FOR 30-DAY READMISSION WHO SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN PREVENTION INTERVENTIONS- ASSESSMENT OF HOSPITAL AND COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS
Author(s)
Flaks-Manov N1, Srulovici E1, Yahalom R2, Peri-Mazra H2, Reem L2, Key C2, Hoshen M1, Balicer RD1, Shadmi E3
1Clalit Research Institute, Tel Aviv, Israel, 2Clalit Health Services, Tel-Aviv, Israel, 3University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
OBJECTIVES: Increasingly, big-data electronic health record warehouses are used for developing and implementing high-risk identification algorithms for targeted readmission prevention programs (RPPs). However, the ability of these electronic tools to accurately detect the "appropriate" patients for RPP according to personal and clinical characteristics (termed "care sensitivity") has not yet been established. The aim of the study is to examine the ability of electronic readmission prediction risk tools to detect care-sensitive patients for inclusion in RPPs. METHODS: Hospital physicians and nurses and primary care physicians and nurses were asked to complete a questionnaire on the clinical characteristics of discharged patients. The questionnaire assessed the degree to which each patient’s automated risk score for 30-day readmission was care-sensitive and the degree to which the patient should be included in RPPs. The correlations between hospitals' and clinics' healthcare provider's assessments and between physicians' and nurses' assessments were examined. RESULTS: A total of 605 questionnaires regarding 276 patients were completed by physicians and nurses. Among patients with low risk scores (i.e., 0-39), both hospital physicians and clinic nurses found that 17% of the patients should have been included in RPPs whereas hospital nurses thought 28% should have been included. Among patients with high risk score (i.e., 50+), 17%, 28%, and 42% should not have been included in RPPs according to hospital nurses, hospital physicians, and clinic nurses, respectively. A significant correlation was found between hospital physicians and nurses regarding the assessment of patients’ risk scores (r=0.159, P=0.018) and the appropriateness for inclusion into RPPs (r=0.289, P<0.001). The most common reasons for patients to be included in RPPs were polypharmacy, the need for continuous monitoring, and low adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Combining electronic data with patients recorded characteristics allows for better adaptability and synchronization across different healthcare providers and for better selection of patients for inclusion in RPPs.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2017-05, ISPOR 2017, Boston, MA, USA
Value in Health, Vol. 20, No. 5 (May 2017)
Code
PHS138
Topic
Health Policy & Regulatory, Health Service Delivery & Process of Care
Topic Subcategory
Health Care Research, Health Disparities & Equity, Quality of Care Measurement
Disease
Multiple Diseases