Hospital Readmissions in Medicare Home Healthcare: What Are the Leading Risk Indicators?

A large sample of all 2011 home healthcare users in traditional Medicare was analyzed to identify the risk indicators at start-of-care that were associated with the highest probability of readmission (N = 597,493). Thirty-five patient characteristics found in Outcome and Assessment Information Set, claims history, or other administrative data were associated with a 30-day readmission risk 30% to 100% above the average in the sample. Most of these characteristics were associated with a 30-day readmission probability of approximately 1 in 5, and several were associated with a readmission probability approaching 1 in 10 during the first 7 days. A majority of the high-risk characteristics were uncommon, and they tended not to occur together, suggesting they can be useful flags for clinicians in prioritizing cases to reduce readmissions. Readmission risk grows most quickly early in the episode of care; typically one-third of the readmissions in the first 30 days occurred by the end of 7 days. High-risk markers at 7 and 30 days were substantially the same, illustrating the importance of the early days at home in influencing the 30-day outcome. A variety of domains and characteristics are represented among the highest-risk markers, suggesting challenges to home healthcare clinicians in maintaining the knowledge and skills needed to address readmission prevention. We suggest possible responses to this problem as strategies to consider, and also discuss implications for assessment practices in home healthcare.

Giving voice to the vulnerable: the development of a CAHPS nursing home survey measuring family members' experiences.

BACKGROUND: To complement a nursing home resident survey, the team developed a survey asking family members about their experiences with nursing homes. Although a family member does not receive care directly from a nursing home, their experiences at the nursing home and with staff can contribute to understanding nursing home quality. OBJECTIVES: To describe how the nursing home family member instrument was developed, refined, tested, and finalized. RESEARCH DESIGN: The team developed a draft survey using information from a literature review, 12 focus groups with family members involved in choosing a nursing home for someone, review of nursing home surveys, and expert/stakeholder input. The survey went through 2 rounds of cognitive interviews (n=54) and revisions and was fielded in 15 nursing homes. Data from the pilot survey (n=885) were subjected to psychometric analyses to evaluate the measurement properties of items as well as the reliability and validity of the resulting composites. On the basis of these analyses and input from experts, the survey was finalized. RESULTS: Focus groups and experts provided input into discerning important indicators of quality, although in some cases family members were not the best sources of information. Cognitive testing refined the survey and eliminated some of the proxy items. The field test analysis and input from experts eliminated 10 items. The final survey included 21 items organized into 4 composites. CONCLUSIONS: This survey measures family members' experiences of nursing home care, and the results contribute to the understanding of quality of care in nursing homes.

The development of a CAHPS instrument for Nursing Home Residents (NHCAHPS).

We report on a federal initiative to develop a CAHPS (The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) survey to measure residents' experiences with quality-of-care and quality-of-life in nursing homes (known as NHCAHPS). We focus on how we created and tested questions for inclusion in the instrument and tested a possible cognitive screener to determine which residents could participate in a NHCAHPS interview. The major lessons learned were: (1) In contrast to other CAHPS surveys, ratings were more useful than reports because of the difficulty that residents had with summarizing over time and people; (2) consistent with other CAHPS surveys, the 0 to 10 response scale appeared to work well with nursing home residents for many of the quality-of-care questions; however, a different response scale was needed for many of the quality-of-life items; and (3) in contrast with typical survey methodology and other CAHPS surveys where explicit time reference periods are used, a non-specific present reference period in questions seemed to work best.

Incidence and short-term outcomes of primary and revision hip replacement in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to use 2003 nationwide United States data to determine the incidences of primary total hip replacement, partial hip replacement, and revision hip replacement and to assess the short-term patient outcomes and factors associated with the outcomes. METHODS: We screened more than eight million hospital discharge abstracts from the 2003 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample and approximately nine million discharge abstracts from five state inpatient databases. Patients who had undergone total, partial, or revision hip replacement were identified with use of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) procedure codes. In-hospital mortality, perioperative complications, readmissions, and the association between these outcomes and certain patient and hospital variables were analyzed. RESULTS: Approximately 200,000 total hip replacements, 100,000 partial hip replacements, and 36,000 revision hip replacements were performed in the United States in 2003. Approximately 60% of the patients were sixty-five years of age or older and at least 75% had one or more comorbid diseases. The in-hospital mortality rates associated with these three procedures were 0.33%, 3.04%, and 0.84%, respectively. The perioperative complication rates associated with the three procedures were 0.68%, 1.36%, and 1.08%, respectively, for deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism; 0.28%, 1.88%, and 1.27% for decubitus ulcer; and 0.05%, 0.06%, and 0.25% for postoperative infection. The rates of readmission, for any cause, within thirty days were 4.91%, 12.15%, and 8.48%, respectively, and the rates of readmissions, within thirty days, that resulted in a surgical procedure on the affected hip were 0.79%, 0.91%, and 1.53%. The rates of readmission, for any cause, within ninety days were 8.94%, 21.14%, and 15.72%, and the rates of readmissions, within ninety days, that resulted in a surgical procedure on the affected hip were 2.15%, 1.61%, and 3.99%. Advanced age and comorbid diseases were associated with worse outcomes, while private insurance coverage and planned admissions were associated with better outcomes. No consistent association between outcomes and hospital characteristics, such as hip procedure volume, was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Total hip replacement, partial hip replacement, and revision hip replacement are associated with different rates of postoperative complications and readmissions. Advanced age, comorbidities, and nonelective admissions are associated with inferior outcomes.

Racial and ethnic differences in patient assessments of interactions with providers: disparities or measurement biases?

Patient assessment surveys have established a primary role in health care quality measurement as evidence has shown that information from patients can affect quality improvement for practitioners and lead to positive marketwide changes. This article presents findings from the recently released National Healthcare Disparities Report revealing that although most clinical quality and access indicators show superior health care for non-Hispanic whites compared with blacks and Hispanics, blacks and Hispanics assess their interactions with providers more positively than non-Hispanic whites do. The article explores possible explanations for these racial/ethnic differences, including potential pitfalls in survey design that draw biased responses by race/ethnicity. The article then suggests strategies for refining future research on racial/ethnic disparities based on patient assessment of health care.

Challenges in measuring nursing home and home health quality: lessons from the First National Healthcare Quality Report.

BACKGROUND: The availability of patient assessment data collected by all Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing homes (NHs) (the Minimum Data Set [MDS]) and home health agencies (HHAs) (the Outcome and Assessment Information Set [OASIS]) provides an opportunity to measure quality of care in these settings. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine methodologic issues encountered as these datasets are used to report the nation's health care in the National Healthcare Quality Report (NHQR) at national and state levels. FINDINGS: Although the reliability of most data elements from MDS and OASIS are considered acceptable in research studies, mixed evidence exists for the reliability and validity of the quality measures themselves. Detection bias can affect the quality measures, particularly for pain and pressure ulcers. Although risk adjustment is used for all measures, effectiveness varies among measures and methods. Additional quality measures such as patient satisfaction, quality of life, and structural measures would be desirable but will require additional data collection efforts. Although the NH measures represent most NH residents, the HHA measures only apply to Medicare and Medicaid patients served by Medicare-certified agencies. Finally, the absence of clinical benchmarks limits the interpretation of the NHQR HHA and NH measures. CONCLUSIONS: Further developmental work is needed to address many of these issues to improve the usefulness of these quality measures in future NHQR reports.

Variation in racial and ethnic differences in consumer assessments of health care.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have documented significant racial and ethnic disparities in health and healthcare, but data about disparities from consumer assessments of care are inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: To examine racial/ethnic differences in consumer assessments and explore variation in such differences across health plans. METHODS: Data included 160694 Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Surveys (CAHPS) responses from 307 commercial health plans and 177 489 Medicare beneficiaries in 308 Medicare+Choice managed care plans collected in 1999. We compared adjusted mean CAHPS global rating and composite scores as well as access to and use of care reported by whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. We assessed variation in the differences between plan means for whites and blacks and between whites and Hispanics. RESULTS: Three minority groups rated their health plans higher than whites on at least 1 measure. Blacks rated their care and doctors higher than whites, while Asians rated their care and doctors lower than whites. Blacks reported better experience with care than whites, but Hispanics and Asians reported worse experience than whites. However, all minority groups reported significantly larger problems with access to and less use of healthcare. The differences between blacks and whites, and blacks and Hispanics in CAHPS measures and access/use measures varied greatly from plan to plan. CONCLUSIONS: Significant race/ethnic differences in experience with, access to, and use of care exist in health plans. Substantial variation in racial differences suggests compromised quality of healthcare and opportunities for quality improvement.

Consumer assessments of care for children and adults in health plans: how do they compare?

OBJECTIVES: The Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Survey (CAHPS) includes an adult version and also a child version for parents or caretakers to rate children's care in health plans. This study examined how adult and child assessments differed in ranking health plans and explored whether the differences justified the additional cost and respondent burden in administering both surveys. METHODS: Data were from 136 commercial health plans participating in the National CAHPS Benchmarking Database, with 80,539 adults and 40,003 children. We compared mean assessments for adults and children on four global ratings and five composites, and determined respondent characteristics predictive of these assessments using regression analysis. We calculated correlations of plan mean scores for adults and children and kappa statistics for agreement when health plans are ranked as above average, average, or below average performers based on adult and child scores. RESULTS: CAHPS scores for children were significantly (P <0.001) higher than those for adults, except for customer service (lower for children) and specialist ratings. Similar respondent characteristics predicted adult and child scores. Plan-level correlations between corresponding adult and child mean scores were moderate to high (r = 0.60-0.85), which translate into fair to moderate agreement (kappa = 0.27-0.61) in ranking health plans. CONCLUSIONS: Adult and child CAHPS provide similar scores and plan rankings on many aspects of care. Child reports include information that may be useful for consumer choice and to health plans for targeting quality improvement. Methods should be developed for assessing health care for children that minimize cost and respondent burden.