Identifying patients at highest-risk: the best timing to apply a readmission predictive model.
All-cause readmission
Electronic medical records
Timing of readmission predictive model
Journal
BMC medical informatics and decision making
ISSN: 1472-6947
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088682
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 06 2019
26 06 2019
Historique:
received:
13
09
2018
accepted:
06
06
2019
entrez:
28
6
2019
pubmed:
28
6
2019
medline:
18
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Most of readmission prediction models are implemented at the time of patient discharge. However, interventions which include an early in-hospital component are critical in reducing readmissions and improving patient outcomes. Thus, at-discharge high-risk identification may be too late for effective intervention. Nonetheless, the tradeoff between early versus at-discharge prediction and the optimal timing of the risk prediction model application remains to be determined. We examined a high-risk patient selection process with readmission prediction models using data available at two time points: at admission and at the time of hospital discharge. An historical prospective study of hospitalized adults (≥65 years) discharged alive from internal medicine units in Clalit's (the largest integrated payer-provider health fund in Israel) general hospitals in 2015. The outcome was all-cause 30-day emergency readmissions to any internal medicine ward at any hospital. We used the previously validated Preadmission Readmission Detection Model (PREADM) and developed a new model incorporating PREADM with hospital data (PREADM-H). We compared the percentage of overlap between the models and calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) for the subgroups identified by each model separately and by both models. The final cohort included 35,156 index hospital admissions. The PREADM-H model included 17 variables with a C-statistic of 0.68 (95% CI: 0.67-0.70) and PPV of 43.0% in the highest-risk categories. Of patients categorized by the PREADM-H in the highest-risk decile, 78% were classified similarly by the PREADM. The 22% (n = 229) classified by the PREADM-H at the highest decile, but not by the PREADM, had a PPV of 37%. Conversely, those classified by the PREADM into the highest decile but not by the PREADM-H (n = 218) had a PPV of 31%. The timing of readmission risk prediction makes a difference in terms of the population identified at each prediction time point - at-admission or at-discharge. Our findings suggest that readmission risk identification should incorporate a two time-point approach in which preadmission data is used to identify high-risk patients as early as possible during the index admission and an "all-hospital" model is applied at discharge to identify those that incur risk during the hospital stay.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Most of readmission prediction models are implemented at the time of patient discharge. However, interventions which include an early in-hospital component are critical in reducing readmissions and improving patient outcomes. Thus, at-discharge high-risk identification may be too late for effective intervention. Nonetheless, the tradeoff between early versus at-discharge prediction and the optimal timing of the risk prediction model application remains to be determined. We examined a high-risk patient selection process with readmission prediction models using data available at two time points: at admission and at the time of hospital discharge.
METHODS
An historical prospective study of hospitalized adults (≥65 years) discharged alive from internal medicine units in Clalit's (the largest integrated payer-provider health fund in Israel) general hospitals in 2015. The outcome was all-cause 30-day emergency readmissions to any internal medicine ward at any hospital. We used the previously validated Preadmission Readmission Detection Model (PREADM) and developed a new model incorporating PREADM with hospital data (PREADM-H). We compared the percentage of overlap between the models and calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) for the subgroups identified by each model separately and by both models.
RESULTS
The final cohort included 35,156 index hospital admissions. The PREADM-H model included 17 variables with a C-statistic of 0.68 (95% CI: 0.67-0.70) and PPV of 43.0% in the highest-risk categories. Of patients categorized by the PREADM-H in the highest-risk decile, 78% were classified similarly by the PREADM. The 22% (n = 229) classified by the PREADM-H at the highest decile, but not by the PREADM, had a PPV of 37%. Conversely, those classified by the PREADM into the highest decile but not by the PREADM-H (n = 218) had a PPV of 31%.
CONCLUSIONS
The timing of readmission risk prediction makes a difference in terms of the population identified at each prediction time point - at-admission or at-discharge. Our findings suggest that readmission risk identification should incorporate a two time-point approach in which preadmission data is used to identify high-risk patients as early as possible during the index admission and an "all-hospital" model is applied at discharge to identify those that incur risk during the hospital stay.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31242886
doi: 10.1186/s12911-019-0836-6
pii: 10.1186/s12911-019-0836-6
pmc: PMC6595564
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
118Références
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Aug 18;16(1):403
pubmed: 27538884
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Jun 1;25(6):670-678
pubmed: 29202188
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 May;23(3):553-61
pubmed: 26374704
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015 May 20;15:39
pubmed: 25991003
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Jan;24(1):198-208
pubmed: 27189013
Ann Intern Med. 2013 Mar 5;158(5 Pt 2):433-40
pubmed: 23460101
J Evid Based Soc Work. 2011 Oct 26;8(5):445-68
pubmed: 22035470
JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Apr 22;173(8):632-8
pubmed: 23529115
J Hosp Med. 2016 Jul;11(7):473-80
pubmed: 26929062
Arch Intern Med. 2006 Sep 25;166(17):1822-8
pubmed: 17000937
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015 Mar;22(2):435-42
pubmed: 25100447
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):520-8
pubmed: 22007045
Med Care. 2015 Nov;53(11):916-23
pubmed: 26465120
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Feb 3;150(3):178-87
pubmed: 19189907
JAMA Pediatr. 2016 Jul 1;170(7):695-703
pubmed: 27182793
JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Apr;176(4):496-502
pubmed: 26954698
Med Care. 2015 Mar;53(3):283-9
pubmed: 25634089
Am J Epidemiol. 2003 Feb 15;157(4):364-75
pubmed: 12578807
JAMA. 2011 Oct 19;306(15):1688-98
pubmed: 22009101
Ann Intern Med. 1994 Jun 15;120(12):999-1006
pubmed: 8185149
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004 Nov;52(11):1817-25
pubmed: 15507057
BMJ Open. 2016 Jun 27;6(6):e011060
pubmed: 27354072