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.

Improving diabetic foot screening at a primary care clinic: A quality improvement project.

BACKGROUND: Foot screening is an important part of diabetic care as it prevents significant morbidity, loss of function and mortality from diabetic foot complications. However, foot screening is often neglected. AIM: This project was aimed at educating health care workers (HCWs) in a primary health care clinic to increase diabetic foot screening practices. SETTING: A primary health care clinic in the Western Cape province of South AfricaMethods: A quality improvement project was conducted. HCWs' needs were assessed using a questionnaire. This was followed by focus group discussions with the HCWs, which were recorded, transcribed and assessed using a general inductive approach. An intervention was designed based on common themes. Staff members were trained on foot screening and patient information pamphlets and screening tools were made available to all clinic staff. Thirty-two consecutive diabetic patient folders were audited to compare screening in 2013 with that in 2014 after initiation of the quality improvement cycle. RESULTS: HCWs' confidence in conducting foot screening using the diabetic foot assessment questionnaire improved markedly after training. Diabetic foot screening practices increased from 9% in 2013 to 69% in 2014 after the first quality improvement cycle. A strengths, opportunities, aspirations and results (SOAR) analysis showed promise for continuing quality improvement cycles. CONCLUSION: The findings showed a significant improvement in the number of diabetic patients screened. Using strategic planning with appreciative intent based on SOAR, proved to be motivational and can be used in the planning of the next cycle.

Evaluation of the "Take Five School": an education programme for people with Type 2 Diabetes in the Western Cape, South Africa.

AIM: To evaluate the Take Five School (TFS) group education programme for patients with Type 2 Diabetes in South Africa. METHODS: Questionnaires, administered before and after 4 sessions of an hour each of group education, measured the effect on self-care activities in 84 patients from 6 different clinics. Individual interviews with health care workers (HCWs) and focus group interviews (FGI's) with patients explored attitudes. RESULTS: A significant improvement in adherence to a diabetic diet, physical activity, foot care and the perceived ability to teach others was seen. There was no significant change in smoking or adherence to medication. Qualitative data revealed that comprehensive education was appreciated, that the group process was deemed supportive, that HCWs doubt the effect of education in general and that a combination of group and individual sessions was seen as an option worth exploring. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to the TFS are identified. Recommendations are made to improve the programme and its environment. CONCLUSION: Significant self-reported improvements in self-care activities after a group-education programme support the view that introducing structured group education for Type 2 Diabetics in a South African public sector primary care context holds promise. Group education for diabetics, especially in resource limited settings, should be sustained and further research should focus on clinical outcomes.