Preventability of unplanned readmissions within 30 days of discharge. A cross-sectional, single-center study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the preventability, determinants and causes of unplanned hospital readmissions within 30 days of discharge using a multidisciplinary approach and including patients' perspectives. DESIGN: A prospective cross-sectional single-center study. SETTING: Urban teaching hospital in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 430 patients were included. Inclusion criteria were: age ≥ 18 years, discharged from one of seven participating clinical departments and an unplanned readmission within 30 days. METHODS: Residents from the participating departments individually assessed whether the readmission was caused by healthcare, the preventability and possible causes of readmissions using a tool. Thereafter, the preventability of the cases was discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting with residents of all participating departments and clinical pharmacists. The primary outcome was the proportion of readmissions that were potentially preventable. Secondary outcomes were the determinants for a readmission, causes for preventable readmissions, the change in the final decision on preventability after the multidisciplinary meeting and the value of patient interviews in assessing preventability. Differences in characteristics of potentially preventable readmissions (PPRs) and non-PPRs were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 430 readmissions, 56 (13%) were assessed as PPRs. Age was significantly associated with a PPR (adjusted OR: 2.42; 95%, CI 1.23-4.74; p = 0.01). The main causes for PPRs were diagnostic (30%), medication (27%) and management problems (27%). During the multidisciplinary meeting, the final decision on preventability changed in 11% of the cases. When a patient interview was available, it was used as a source of information to assess preventability in 26% of readmissions. In 7% of cases, the patient interview was mentioned as the most important source. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: 13% of readmissions were potentially preventable with diagnostic, medication or management problems being main causes. A multidisciplinary review approach and including the patient's perspective could contribute to a better understanding of the complexity of readmissions and possible improvements.

A New and Validated Clinical Prognostic Model (EPI) for Enteropathy-Associated T-cell Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: Enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (EATL) is a rare intestinal non-Hodgkin lymphoma with a poor, though variable prognosis. The International Prognostic Index (IPI) and the prognostic index for peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PIT) have limited predictive value for outcome of EATL. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a prognostic model for EATL, which can identify high-risk patients who need more aggressive therapy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This retrospective multicenter study was based on 92 patients and included 45 patients diagnosed with EATL between 1999 and 2009 from the Netherlands and 47 patients from England and Scotland, diagnosed with EATL between 1994 and 1998. A new EATL prognostic index (EPI) was constructed using the RPART (recursive partitioning and regression trees) procedure. Validation was performed applying the bootstrap method. RESULTS: Three risk groups were distinguished (P < 0.0001): a high-risk group, characterized by the presence of B-symptoms [median overall survival (OS) of 2 months]; an intermediate-risk group, comprising patients without B-symptoms and an IPI score ≥ 2 (7 months); and a low-risk group, representing patients without B-symptoms and an IPI score of 0 to 1 (34 months). Internal validation showed stability of statistical significance and prognostic discrimination. In contrast with the IPI and PIT, the EPI better classified patients in risk groups according to their clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Our new, validated, prognostic model EPI accurately predicts survival outcome in EATL and may be used for patient selection for new therapeutic strategies and evaluation of clinical trials.