The Association of Readmission Reduction Activities with Primary Care Practice Readmission Rates.

Medicare primary care primary care practices quality of care readmission readmission activities readmission interventions readmission reduction

Journal

Journal of general internal medicine
ISSN: 1525-1497
Titre abrégé: J Gen Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8605834

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 2022
Historique:
received: 30 05 2021
accepted: 24 06 2021
pubmed: 15 7 2021
medline: 23 9 2022
entrez: 14 7 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

A great deal of research has focused on how hospitals influence readmission rates. While hospitals play a vital role in reducing readmissions, a significant portion of the work also falls to primary care practices. Despite this critical role of primary care, little empirical evidence has shown what primary care characteristics or activities are associated with reductions in hospital admissions. To examine the relationship between practices' readmission reduction activities and their readmission rates. A retrospective study of 1,788 practices who responded to the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (fielded 2017-2018) and 415,663 hospital admissions for Medicare beneficiaries attributed to those practices from 2016 100% Medicare claims data. We constructed mixed-effects logistic regression models to estimate practice-level readmission rates and a linear regression model to evaluate the association between practices' readmission rates with their number of readmission reduction activities. Standardized composite score, ranging from 0 to 1, representing the number of a practice's readmission reduction capabilities. The composite score was composed of 12 unique capabilities identified in the literature as being significantly associated with lower readmission rates (e.g., presence of care manager, medication reconciliation, shared-decision making, etc.). Practices' readmission rates for attributed Medicare beneficiaries. Routinely engaging in more readmission reduction activities was significantly associated (P < .05) with lower readmission rates. On average, practices experienced a 0.05 percentage point decrease in readmission rates for each additional activity. Average risk-standardized readmission rates for practices performing 10 or more of the 12 activities in our composite measure were a full percentage point lower than risk-standardized readmission rates for practices engaging in none of the activities. Primary care practices that engaged in more readmission reduction activities had lower readmission rates. These findings add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that engaging in multiple activities, rather than any single activity, is associated with decreased readmissions.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
A great deal of research has focused on how hospitals influence readmission rates. While hospitals play a vital role in reducing readmissions, a significant portion of the work also falls to primary care practices. Despite this critical role of primary care, little empirical evidence has shown what primary care characteristics or activities are associated with reductions in hospital admissions.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the relationship between practices' readmission reduction activities and their readmission rates.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
A retrospective study of 1,788 practices who responded to the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (fielded 2017-2018) and 415,663 hospital admissions for Medicare beneficiaries attributed to those practices from 2016 100% Medicare claims data. We constructed mixed-effects logistic regression models to estimate practice-level readmission rates and a linear regression model to evaluate the association between practices' readmission rates with their number of readmission reduction activities.
INTERVENTIONS
Standardized composite score, ranging from 0 to 1, representing the number of a practice's readmission reduction capabilities. The composite score was composed of 12 unique capabilities identified in the literature as being significantly associated with lower readmission rates (e.g., presence of care manager, medication reconciliation, shared-decision making, etc.).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Practices' readmission rates for attributed Medicare beneficiaries.
KEY RESULTS
Routinely engaging in more readmission reduction activities was significantly associated (P < .05) with lower readmission rates. On average, practices experienced a 0.05 percentage point decrease in readmission rates for each additional activity. Average risk-standardized readmission rates for practices performing 10 or more of the 12 activities in our composite measure were a full percentage point lower than risk-standardized readmission rates for practices engaging in none of the activities.
CONCLUSIONS
Primary care practices that engaged in more readmission reduction activities had lower readmission rates. These findings add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that engaging in multiple activities, rather than any single activity, is associated with decreased readmissions.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34258724
doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-07005-y
pii: 10.1007/s11606-021-07005-y
pmc: PMC9485329
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

3005-3012

Subventions

Organisme : AHRQ HHS
ID : U19 HS024075
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

© 2021. Society of General Internal Medicine.

Références

Ann Intern Med. 2009 Feb 3;150(3):178-87
pubmed: 19189907
JAMA Surg. 2014 Aug;149(8):821-8
pubmed: 25074237
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Jul 1;177(7):975-985
pubmed: 28558095
Health Aff (Millwood). 2020 Aug;39(8):1302-1311
pubmed: 32744948
J Eval Clin Pract. 2011 Dec;17(6):1167-75
pubmed: 20630005
Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 Sep;33(9):1680-8
pubmed: 25122562
J Fam Pract. 2014 Feb;63(2):67-73
pubmed: 24527477
JAMA Intern Med. 2016 May 1;176(5):681-90
pubmed: 27065180
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Jul;174(7):1095-107
pubmed: 24820131
J Hosp Med. 2013 Feb;8(2):102-9
pubmed: 23184714
Ann Intern Med. 1994 Jun 15;120(12):999-1006
pubmed: 8185149
Health Aff (Millwood). 2021 Jan;40(1):98-104
pubmed: 33400572
Am J Manag Care. 2015 Feb;21(2):106-13
pubmed: 25880360
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Aug 18;16(1):403
pubmed: 27538884
Prof Case Manag. 2009 May-Jun;14(3):135-40; quiz 141-2
pubmed: 19474639
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013 Jul;6(4):444-50
pubmed: 23861483
Lancet. 2005 Jan 1-7;365(9453):82-93
pubmed: 15639683
Health Serv Res. 2020 Dec;55 Suppl 3:1085-1097
pubmed: 33104254
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2018 Dec 1;43(6):1025-1040
pubmed: 31091325
Arch Intern Med. 2004 Nov 22;164(21):2315-20
pubmed: 15557409
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Sep 23;14:423
pubmed: 25244946
J Gerontol Nurs. 2012 Mar;38(3):40-50
pubmed: 22300505
BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Apr;27(4):308-320
pubmed: 29248878
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014 Sep;7(5):627-33
pubmed: 25205787
Annu Rev Med. 2014;65:471-85
pubmed: 24160939
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004 May;52(5):675-84
pubmed: 15086645
Healthc (Amst). 2016 Mar;4(1):30-5
pubmed: 27001096
Health Serv Res. 2019 Dec;54(6):1214-1222
pubmed: 31742688
Arch Intern Med. 2006 Sep 25;166(17):1822-8
pubmed: 17000937
Med Care. 2016 Jun;54(6):600-7
pubmed: 27050446
JAMA. 2010 May 5;303(17):1716-22
pubmed: 20442387
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):520-8
pubmed: 22007045
Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Aug;32(8):1407-15
pubmed: 23918485
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016 Dec;82(6):1660-1673
pubmed: 27511835
Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2020 Sep;20(2-3):85-110
pubmed: 33613088

Auteurs

Steven B Spivack (SB)

Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. steven.spivack@yale.edu.
Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, 1 Church St, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA. steven.spivack@yale.edu.

Darren DeWalt (D)

Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, USA.

Jonathan Oberlander (J)

Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, USA.

Justin Trogdon (J)

Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Public Health, Chapel Hill, USA.

Nilay Shah (N)

Division of Health Care Policy & Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.

Ellen Meara (E)

Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA.

Morris Weinberger (M)

Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Public Health, Chapel Hill, USA.

Kristin Reiter (K)

Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Public Health, Chapel Hill, USA.

Devang Agravat (D)

The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, USA.

Carrie Colla (C)

The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, USA.

Valerie Lewis (V)

Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Public Health, Chapel Hill, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH