FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2097201724> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2097201724 abstract "HomeJournal of the American Heart AssociationVol. 3, No. 3Reducing Readmissions: What Might it Take? Open AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toOpen AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBReducing Readmissions: What Might it Take? Ashish K. Jha Ashish K. JhaAshish K. Jha Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA Search for more papers by this author Originally published19 Jun 2014https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.114.001080Journal of the American Heart Association. 2014;3:e001080IntroductionWhy do some patients discharged from a hospital come back whereas others do not? This is a question that has been vexing clinical and policy leaders over the past 5 years. Spurred by the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, hospitals have begun to focus on ensuring that patients are not readmitted soon after they are discharged. Efforts include improving discharge planning, setting up more effective follow‐up, and improving clinical quality so that patients are not readmitted for complications of care. These efforts have worked to an extent. Five years after public reporting of readmission rates went into effect, we have started to see the frequency with which patients are readmitted decrease. The latest data suggest that readmission rates have fallen by 1 percentage point, from approximately 19% of all discharges to 17.8% of all discharges in the Medicare population.1Although this is an improvement, we are not nearly done. There is emerging consensus that some drivers of readmissions are accountable to the hospital providing the initial acute care, but a large component of readmissions may be driven by patient socioeconomic factors or community‐level factors. It is in that context that the study by Brown and colleagues published in this issue of JAHA provides important empirical insight. Using national Medicare data, they find that hospitals with more medical admissions, more physicians, and greater intensity of health care utilization had higher readmissions.2 What do these insights tell us?First and foremost, we know that admissions and readmissions are linked. Readmissions are, at their simplest form, an admission for a patient who was discharged within the last 30 days. I trained in San Francisco. When I moved to Boston, I was surprised to find that we would admit people who would have been treated as outpatients in the Bay Area. However, it was unclear which place provided better care—it was simply only different care. Some hospitals have a lower threshold for admitting someone and that translates into both lower admission and readmission rates, a relationship that has been consistently born out in Medicare literature.3Second, whereas the notion that having a higher per capita rate of primary care physicians is associated with higher readmission rates will strike many casual observers as contradictory, it is quite consistent with the broader literature. Primary care is supposed to prevent these readmissions. However, empirical data suggest that our mental model for why people are readmitted may need updating. In many instances, having more primary care physicians—and, indeed, more primary care visits—may simply increase the chances that someone will pay close attention and ensure that people who are ill get additional care.4 It is unsurprising that greater clinical attention—and greater clinical intensity—is associated with a higher likelihood of returning to the hospital.All of this gets to the broader point about readmissions and what they represent. They are, ultimately, a narrow way to gauge the quality and costs of care for patients discharged from the hospital. Some patients, because of poor hospital care or poor transitions, may die or spend weeks in rehabilitation hospitals or nursing homes. None of those count as a readmission and therefore get little scrutiny. However, the patient who returns for a short readmission 4 weeks after discharge is seen as a clinical failure. These are the consequences of a narrowly tailored measure. Though the readmission rate as a utilization measure occasionally signals quality failures, we can and need to do better. One approach is to look at the totality of care that occurs in the days to weeks after discharge. We know that the risk of readmission remains elevated out to nearly 90 days after the patient leaves the hospital.5 A better way to gauge and pay hospitals might be to create a longer bundle—ask hospitals to be accountable for a broader swath of services (not just readmissions) and build strong quality metrics that ensure that we are not simply denying access to critical services as a way to save money.Our nation has embarked on a series of important new reforms that seek to change the way we deliver and pay for care. This is a good thing—the old way of doing things was not working well financially or for our patients. The article by Brown et al. is an important reminder that the story of readmissions is a complex one—affected not just by discharge planning, but also by the broader milieu of care that exists outside the hospital. If we want hospitals to be responsible for improving care and reducing costs, we will have to think beyond admissions and readmission.DisclosuresNone.Footnotes*Correspondece to: Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Kresge 409, Boston, MA 02115. E‐mail: [email protected]harvard.eduThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.References1 Statement of Jonathan Blum, Acting Principal Deputy Administrator and Director, Center for Medicare, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on Delivery System Reform: Progress Report from CMS, before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee. February 28, 2013.Google Scholar2 Brown JR, Chang CH, Zhou W, MacKenzie TA, Malenka DJ, Goodman DC. Health system characteristics and rates of readmission after acute myocardial infarction in the United States. J Am Heart Assoc. 2014; 3:e000714 doi:10.1161/JAHA.113.000714.Google Scholar3 Epstein AM, Jha AK, Orav EJ. The relationship between hospital admission rates and rehospitalizations. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365:2287–2295.Google Scholar4 Weinberger M, Oddone EZ, Henderson WG. Does increased access to primary care reduce hospital readmissions? Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Primary Care and Hospital Readmission. N Engl J Med. 1996; 334:1441–1447.Google Scholar5 Jencks SF, Williams MV, Coleman EA. Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee‐for‐service program. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360:1418–1428.Google Scholar eLetters(0)eLetters should relate to an article recently published in the journal and are not a forum for providing unpublished data. Comments are reviewed for appropriate use of tone and language. Comments are not peer-reviewed. Acceptable comments are posted to the journal website only. Comments are not published in an issue and are not indexed in PubMed. Comments should be no longer than 500 words and will only be posted online. References are limited to 10. Authors of the article cited in the comment will be invited to reply, as appropriate.Comments and feedback on AHA/ASA Scientific Statements and Guidelines should be directed to the AHA/ASA Manuscript Oversight Committee via its Correspondence page.Sign In to Submit a Response to This Article Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails May 22, 2014Vol 3, Issue 3 Article InformationMetrics © 2014 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.114.001080PMID: 24947999 Manuscript receivedJune 5, 2014Manuscript acceptedJune 9, 2014Originally publishedJune 19, 2014 Keywordssystems of careEditorialshealth services researchreadmissionhealth policy and outcomes researchPDF download SubjectsEpidemiologyMyocardial Infarction" @default.
• W2097201724 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2097201724 creator A5048037454 @default.
• W2097201724 date "2014-05-22" @default.
• W2097201724 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2097201724 title "Reducing Readmissions: What Might it Take?" @default.
• W2097201724 cites W2106372271 @default.
• W2097201724 cites W2128311392 @default.
• W2097201724 cites W2170131723 @default.
• W2097201724 cites W2330069695 @default.
• W2097201724 doi "https://doi.org/10.1161/jaha.114.001080" @default.
• W2097201724 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/4309111" @default.
• W2097201724 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24947999" @default.
• W2097201724 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2097201724 type Work @default.
• W2097201724 sameAs 2097201724 @default.
• W2097201724 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2097201724 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2097201724 hasAuthorship W2097201724A5048037454 @default.
• W2097201724 hasBestOaLocation W20972017241 @default.
• W2097201724 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W2097201724 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2097201724 hasConceptScore W2097201724C177713679 @default.
• W2097201724 hasConceptScore W2097201724C71924100 @default.
• W2097201724 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2097201724 hasLocation W20972017241 @default.
• W2097201724 hasLocation W20972017242 @default.
• W2097201724 hasLocation W20972017243 @default.
• W2097201724 hasLocation W20972017244 @default.
• W2097201724 hasLocation W20972017245 @default.
• W2097201724 hasOpenAccess W2097201724 @default.
• W2097201724 hasPrimaryLocation W20972017241 @default.
• W2097201724 hasRelatedWork W1506200166 @default.
• W2097201724 hasRelatedWork W1995515455 @default.
• W2097201724 hasRelatedWork W2039318446 @default.
• W2097201724 hasRelatedWork W2080531066 @default.
• W2097201724 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2097201724 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2097201724 hasRelatedWork W3031052312 @default.
• W2097201724 hasRelatedWork W3032375762 @default.
• W2097201724 hasRelatedWork W3108674512 @default.
• W2097201724 hasRelatedWork W4252371801 @default.
• W2097201724 hasVolume "3" @default.
• W2097201724 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2097201724 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2097201724 magId "2097201724" @default.
• W2097201724 workType "article" @default.