Predictive Value of LACE Scores for Pediatric Readmissions.

INTRODUCTION: Hospital readmissions are recognized as a prevalent, yet potentially preventable, personal and economic burden. Length of stay, Acuity of admission, Comorbidities, and number of Emergency Department visits in the preceding 6 months can be quantified into one score, the LACE score. LACE scores have previously been identified to correlate with hospital readmissions within 30 days of discharge, but research specific to the pediatric population is scant. The objective of the present study was to investigate if LACE scores, in addition to other factors, can be utilized to create a predictive pediatric hospital readmission model that may ultimately be used to decrease readmission rates. METHODS: This study included 25,616 hospitalizations of patients under the age of 18 years. Data were extracted from a hospital network electronic medical record. Demographics included LACE scores, age, gender, race/ethnicity, median household income, and medical centers. The primary exposure variable was LACE score. The main outcome measures were readmissions within 7, 14, and 30 days. The area under the curve (AUC) was used to assess the predictive capability of the regression model on patient 30-day admission. RESULTS: LACE scores, age, gender, race/ethnicity, median household income, and medical centers were examined in a multivariable model to assess patient risk of a 30-day readmission. Only age and LACE score were observed to be statistically significant. The AUC for the combined model was 0.69. DISCUSSION: As only age and LACE score were observed to be statistically significant and the AUC for the combined model was 0.69, this model is considered to have poor predictive capability. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, LACE scores, as well the other factors, had a poor predictive capability for pediatric readmissions.

The Assessment and Measurement of Wellness in the Clinical Medical Setting: A Systematic Review.

We conducted a systematic review of the published literature relating to the assessment and measurement of wellness in order to answer the following questions: 1) What is the working definition of wellness? 2) What wellness assessment instruments have been evaluated or applied in medical settings? 3) How valid, reliable, and accessible are these wellness assessment tools? The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for this systematic review. Studies published from1990 to 2016 on wellness assessment were identified through Medline and PsycINFO using the following keywords: "assessment" OR "evaluation" OR "measurement" AND "wellness" OR "wellbeing." Two authors independently conducted a focused analysis then reached a consensus on 23 studies that met the specific selection criteria. This review revealed that there is a lack of uniform definition of wellness. The studies utilizing wellness assessment tools demonstrate strongest reliability values for the following instruments: Wellness Evaluation of Lifestyle, Five-factor Wellness Evaluation of Lifestyle, Perceived Wellness Survey, the Optimal Living Profile, and the Body-Mind-Spirit Wellness Behavior and Characteristic Inventory. However, there is insufficient evidence to support the clinical utility of a single particular wellness instrument. Properly defining wellness might help drive the development and validation of more precise assessment and measurement methods. This could reinforce interventions that promote wellness.

Quality of life and functioning of Hispanic patients with Major Depressive Disorder before and after treatment.

BACKGROUND: Similar rates of remission from Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) have been documented between ethnic groups in response to antidepressant treatment. However, ethnic differences in functional outcomes, including patient-reported quality of life (QOL) and functioning, have not been well-characterized. We compared symptomatic and functional outcomes of antidepressant treatment in Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with MDD. METHODS: We analyzed 2280 nonpsychotic treatment-seeking adults with MDD who received citalopram monotherapy in Level 1 of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression study. All subjects (239 Hispanic, 2041 non-Hispanic) completed QOL, functioning, and depressive symptom severity measures at entry and exit. RESULTS: Hispanic participants had significantly worse QOL scores at entry and exit (p < 0.01). However, after controlling for baseline QOL, there was no difference between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients' QOL at exit (p = 0.21). There were no significant between-group differences at entry or at exit for depressive symptom severity or functioning. Both groups had significant improvements in depressive symptom severity, QOL, and functioning from entry to exit (all p values < 0.01). Patients with private insurance had lower depressive symptom severity, greater QOL, and better functioning at exit compared to patients without private insurance. LIMITATIONS: This study was a retrospective data analysis, and the Hispanic group was relatively small compared to the non-Hispanic group. CONCLUSIONS: Hispanic and non-Hispanic participants with MDD had similar responses to antidepressant treatment as measured by depressive symptom severity scores, quality of life, and functioning. Nevertheless, Hispanic patients reported significantly worse quality of life at entry.