The Impact of Pharmacy-specific Predictors on the Performance of 30-Day Readmission Risk Prediction Models.
Aged
Chronic Disease
/ therapy
Comorbidity
Female
Hospitalization
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Male
Medicare
Outcome Assessment, Health Care
/ statistics & numerical data
Patient Readmission
/ statistics & numerical data
Pharmaceutical Services
/ statistics & numerical data
Retrospective Studies
Risk Adjustment
/ methods
Severity of Illness Index
United States
Journal
Medical care
ISSN: 1537-1948
Titre abrégé: Med Care
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0230027
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2019
04 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
5
3
2019
medline:
14
6
2019
entrez:
5
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Pharmacists are an expensive and limited resource in the hospital and outpatient setting. A pharmacist can spend up to 25% of their day planning. Time spent planning is time not spent delivering an intervention. A readmission risk adjustment model has potential to be used as a universal outcome-based prioritization tool to help pharmacists plan their interventions more efficiently. Pharmacy-specific predictors have not been used in the constructs of current readmission risk models. We assessed the impact of adding pharmacy-specific predictors on performance of readmission risk prediction models. We used an observational retrospective cohort study design to assess whether pharmacy-specific predictors such as an aggregate pharmacy score and drug classes would improve the prediction of 30-day readmission. A model of age, sex, length of stay, and admission category predictors was used as the reference model. We added predictor variables in sequential models to evaluate the incremental effect of additional predictors on the performance of the reference. We used logistic regression to regress the outcomes on predictors in our derivation dataset. We derived and internally validated our models through a 50:50 split validation of our dataset. Our study population (n=350,810) was of adult admissions at hospitals in a large integrated health care delivery system. Individually, the aggregate pharmacy score and drug classes caused a nearly identical but moderate increase in model performance over the reference. As a single predictor, the comorbidity burden score caused the greatest increase in model performance when added to the reference. Adding the severity of illness score, comorbidity burden score and the aggregate pharmacy score to the reference caused a cumulative increase in model performance with good discrimination (c statistic, 0.712; Nagelkerke R, 0.112). The best performing model included all predictors: severity of illness score, comorbidity burden score, aggregate pharmacy score, diagnosis groupings, and drug subgroups. Adding the aggregate pharmacy score to the reference model significantly increased the c statistic but was out-performed by the comorbidity burden score model in predicting readmission. The need for a universal prioritization tool for pharmacists may therefore be potentially met with the comorbidity burden score model. However, the aggregate pharmacy score and drug class models still out-performed current Medicare readmission risk adjustment models. Pharmacists have a great role in preventing readmission, and therefore can potentially use one of our models: comorbidity burden score model, aggregate pharmacy score model, drug class model or complex model (a combination of all 5 major predictors) to prioritize their interventions while exceeding Medicare performance measures on readmission. The choice of model to use should be based on the availability of these predictors in the health care system.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30829940
doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001075
pmc: PMC6417963
mid: NIHMS1518981
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
295-299Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R01 HL136719
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R35 GM128672
Pays : United States
Références
Med Care. 2015 Nov;53(11):916-23
pubmed: 26465120
Med Care. 2008 Mar;46(3):232-9
pubmed: 18388836
Hosp Pharm. 2015 Sep;50(8):700-9
pubmed: 26823619
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011 Mar;4(2):243-52
pubmed: 21406673
BMJ Open. 2016 Feb 23;6(2):e010003
pubmed: 26908524
Med Care. 2003 Mar;41(3):407-19
pubmed: 12618644
Hosp Pharm. 2016 Jun;51(6):468-73
pubmed: 27354748
J Hosp Med. 2017 Oct 04;13(4):229-236
pubmed: 29069115
Neurosurgery. 2018 Feb 1;82(2):173-181
pubmed: 28402465
BMJ. 2005 Aug 13;331(7513):371
pubmed: 16096303
Int J Qual Health Care. 2017 Apr 1;29(2):200-205
pubmed: 28453819
CMAJ. 2010 Apr 6;182(6):551-7
pubmed: 20194559
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2008 Sep;1(1):29-37
pubmed: 20031785
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2018 Feb;53(2):139-149
pubmed: 29124290
Crit Care. 2015 Aug 13;19:285
pubmed: 26268570
J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2018 Jan - Feb;58(1):36-43
pubmed: 29097094
JACC Heart Fail. 2017 Aug;5(8):578-588
pubmed: 28501521
Am J Manag Care. 2017 Aug 1;23(8):e253-e258
pubmed: 29087152
J Pharm Technol. 2016 Oct 1;32(5):179-184
pubmed: 28924623
BMC Bioinformatics. 2011 Mar 17;12:77
pubmed: 21414208
Open Med. 2012 Jul 19;6(3):e80-90
pubmed: 23696773
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2018 Jan;90(1):50-54
pubmed: 29153470
JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Apr;176(4):484-93
pubmed: 26954564
Swiss Med Wkly. 2016 Aug 06;146:w14335
pubmed: 27497141
J Patient Saf. 2017 Jun 30;:
pubmed: 28671909
Med Care Res Rev. 2014 Feb;71(1):99-111
pubmed: 24132581
JAMA. 2011 Oct 19;306(15):1688-98
pubmed: 22009101
Epidemiology. 2010 Jan;21(1):128-38
pubmed: 20010215
J Emerg Med. 2017 Dec;53(6):896-903
pubmed: 28941557
J Hosp Med. 2016 Jan;11(1):39-44
pubmed: 26434752
Pharm Pract (Granada). 2017 Jul-Sep;15(3):1026
pubmed: 28943985
Can J Hosp Pharm. 2012 Jul;65(4):319-21
pubmed: 22919111