PRISMA Analysis of 30 Day Readmissions to a Tertiary Cancer Hospital

Background: Hospital readmissions are increasingly used as a quality indicator. Patients with cancer have an increased risk of readmission. The purpose of this study was to develop an in depth understanding of the causes of readmissions in patients undergoing cancer treatment using PRISMA methodology and was subsequently used to identify any potentially preventable causes of readmission in this cohort. Methods: 50 consecutive 30 day readmissions from the 1st November 2014 to the medical admissions unit (MAU) at a specialist tertiary cancer hospital in the Northwest of England were analysed retrospectively. Results: 25(50%) of the patients were male with a median age of 59 years (range 19-81). PRISMA analysis showed that active (human) factors contributed to the readmission of 4 (8%) of the readmissions, which may have been potentially preventable. All of the readmissions were driven by a medical condition related to the patient’s underlying cancer and ongoing cancer treatment. Conclusion: The majority of readmissions of patients undergoing cancer treatment appear to be related to the underlying condition and, as such, are predictable but not preventable. This suggests that hospital readmission is not a good quality indicator in this cohort of patients.

Download Full-text

Tobacco use, knowledge of harms, and cessation support among patients with non-tobacco related cancers.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.e24029 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. e24029-e24029

Author(s):

Laura Vater ◽

Anup Trikannad Ashwini Kumar ◽

Neha Sehgal ◽

Maria Khan ◽

Kelsey Bullens ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Cancer Treatment ◽

Medical Center ◽

Safety Net ◽

Cancer Center ◽

Prescribe Medication ◽

Patients With Cancer ◽

Quit Smoking ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Quit Attempts

e24029 Background: Continued cigarette smoking among patients with cancer leads to numerous adverse health outcomes, even among patients with non-tobacco-related cancers such as breast, colon, and prostate cancer. Continued smoking is associated with poorer response to cancer treatment, increased risk for treatment-related toxicities, and shorter overall survival. While some patients with a smoking-related cancer make efforts to quit smoking at the time of diagnosis, patients with other forms of cancer might not understand the negative effects of continued smoking. In this study, we assessed patient knowledge of the harms of continued smoking, previous cessation attempts, and cessation support. Methods: We surveyed 102 adults with breast, colon, and prostate cancer at three locations: an NCI-designated cancer center, an urban safety-net medical center, and a rural cancer center. Patients were asked about current smoking behaviors, beliefs about the harms of continued smoking, quit attempts and resources used, and cessation support. We also surveyed seven oncologists to assess beliefs about harms of continued smoking, cessation support provided to patients, training and confidence in cessation counseling, and barriers to providing cessation support. Results: Most patients (82%) agreed or strongly agreed that continued smoking may shorten life expectancy, and 70% agreed or strongly agreed that continued smoking increased the risk of getting a different type of cancer. Only 41% of patients agreed or strongly agreed that continued smoking may cause more side effects from cancer treatment, and only 40% agreed or strongly agreed that ongoing smoking may affect treatment response. The majority of patients (86%) had tried to quit smoking for good, with an average 4.1 quit attempts per patient. Patients reported that physicians advised them to quit the majority of the time (92%), prescribed medication 33% of the time, and followed up on cessation attempts 43% of the time. Overall, oncologists had higher knowledge of the harms of continued smoking on treatment outcomes and survival. Those in practice for 20 years or more had higher confidence in cessation counseling than those in practice less than 4 years. Oncologists described lack of time and lack of confidence in cessation counseling as barriers to providing more cessation support. Conclusions: Among 102 patients with breast, colon, and prostate cancer who currently smoke, there was incomplete knowledge of the harms of continued smoking. Oncologists believe that tobacco cessation is important and frequently advise patients to quit, however they less frequently prescribe medication or follow up on cessation efforts. Interventions are needed to educate patients with cancer about the harms of continued smoking and to provide further cessation support.

Download Full-text

Elevated Cancer-Specific Mortality Among HIV-Infected Patients in the United States

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2014.59.5967 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 33 (21) ◽

pp. 2376-2383 ◽

Cited By ~ 142

Author(s):

Anna E. Coghill ◽

Meredith S. Shiels ◽

Gita Suneja ◽

Eric A. Engels

Keyword(s):

Cancer Treatment ◽

Cox Regression ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

The United States ◽

Cancer Stage ◽

Infected People ◽

Patients With Cancer ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Specific Mortality ◽

Cancer Specific Mortality

Purpose Despite advances in the treatment of HIV, HIV-infected people remain at increased risk for many cancers, and the number of non–AIDS-defining cancers is increasing with the aging of the HIV-infected population. No prior study has comprehensively evaluated the effect of HIV on cancer-specific mortality. Patients and Methods We identified cases of 14 common cancers occurring from 1996 to 2010 in six US states participating in a linkage of cancer and HIV/AIDS registries. We used Cox regression to examine the association between patient HIV status and death resulting from the presenting cancer (ascertained from death certificates), adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, year of cancer diagnosis, and cancer stage. We included 1,816,461 patients with cancer, 6,459 (0.36%) of whom were HIV infected. Results Cancer-specific mortality was significantly elevated in HIV-infected compared with HIV-uninfected patients for many cancers: colorectum (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.21 to 1.84), pancreas (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.35 to 2.18), larynx (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.06 to 2.47), lung (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.39), melanoma (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.09 to 2.70), breast (HR, 2.61; 95% CI, 2.06 to 3.31), and prostate (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.41). HIV was not associated with increased cancer-specific mortality for anal cancer, Hodgkin lymphoma, or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. After further adjustment for cancer treatment, HIV remained associated with elevated cancer-specific mortality for common non–AIDS-defining cancers: colorectum (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.80), lung (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.44), melanoma (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.14 to 3.27), and breast (HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.86 to 3.73). Conclusion HIV-infected patients with cancer experienced higher cancer-specific mortality than HIV-uninfected patients, independent of cancer stage or receipt of cancer treatment. The elevation in cancer-specific mortality among HIV-infected patients may be attributable to unmeasured stage or treatment differences as well as a direct relationship between immunosuppression and tumor progression.

Download Full-text

Individual and Organizational Factors Associated With Hospital Readmission Rates: Evidence From a U.S. National Sample

Journal of Applied Gerontology ◽

10.1177/0733464819870983 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 39 (10) ◽

pp. 1153-1158 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Kyaien O. Conner ◽

Hongdao Meng ◽

Victoria Marino ◽

Timothy L. Boaz

Keyword(s):

Hospital Readmission ◽

Chronic Conditions ◽

Transitional Care ◽

Hospital Readmissions ◽

Severity Of Illness ◽

Organizational Factors ◽

The United States ◽

Multiple Chronic Conditions ◽

Important Indicator ◽

Increased Risk

Objective: Hospital readmission rate is an important indicator for assessing quality of care in the acute and postacute settings. Identifying factors that increase risk for hospital readmissions can aid in the recognition of potential targets for quality improvement efforts. The main objective of this brief report was to examine the factors that predict increased risk of 30-day readmissions. Method: We analyzed data from the 2013 National Readmission Database (NRD). Results: The main factors that predicted increased risk of 30-day readmission were number of chronic conditions, severity of illness, mortality risk, and hospital ownership. Unexpectedly, discharge from a for-profit hospital was associated with greater risk for hospital readmission in the United States. Discussion and Conclusion: These findings suggest that patients with severe physical illness and multiple chronic conditions should be the primary targets for hospital transitional care interventions to help reduce the rate of unnecessary hospital readmissions.

Download Full-text

The Impact of Peer Support on the Risk of Future Hospital Readmissions among Older Adults with a Medical Illness and Co-Occurring Depression

Social Sciences ◽

10.3390/socsci7090156 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 7 (9) ◽

pp. 156

Author(s):

Kyaien Conner ◽

Tamara Cadet ◽

Monique Brown ◽

Joshua Barnett

Keyword(s):

Older Adults ◽

Peer Support ◽

Hospital Readmission ◽

Protective Factor ◽

Medical Condition ◽

Hospital Readmissions ◽

Medical Illness ◽

Future Hospital ◽

Discharge From Hospital ◽

The Impact

Older adults account for 60% of all preventable hospital readmissions. Although not all readmissions are preventable, evidence indicates that up to 75% of hospital readmissions can be prevented with enhanced patient education, pre-discharge assessment, and effective care upon discharge. Social support, specifically peer support, after discharge from hospital may be a crucial factor in minimizing the risk of preventable hospital readmission. The pilot study reported here evaluated the relationship between peer support and hospital readmissions in a sample of depressed older adults (N = 41) who were recently discharged from hospital due to a medical condition and who simultaneously had an untreated mental health diagnosis of depression. As hypothesized, participants who received the 3-month long peer support intervention were significantly less likely to be readmitted compared to those who did not receive the intervention. Findings from this preliminary information suggest that peer support is a protective factor that can positively affect patient outcomes, reduce the risk of hospital readmission, and reduce depressive symptoms among older adults with health and behavioral health comorbidities.

Download Full-text

Healthcare-Associated Infection and Hospital Readmission

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology ◽

10.1086/665725 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 33 (6) ◽

pp. 539-544 ◽

Cited By ~ 47

Author(s):

Carley B. Emerson ◽

Lindsay M. Eyzaguirre ◽

Jennifer S. Albrecht ◽

Angela C. Comer ◽

Anthony D. Harris ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hospital Admission ◽

Hospital Readmission ◽

Hospital Readmissions ◽

Tertiary Care ◽

Culture Result ◽

Healthcare Associated Infection ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Clinical Culture ◽

Healthcare Associated ◽

Culture Positive

Objective.Hospital readmissions are a current target of initiatives to reduce healthcare costs. This study quantified the association between having a clinical culture positive for 1 of 3 prevalent hospital-associated organisms and time to hospital readmission.Design.Retrospective cohort study.Patients and Setting.Adults admitted to an academic, tertiary care referral center from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2008.Methods.The primary exposure of interest was a clinical culture positive for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), or Clostridium difficile obtained more than 48 hours after hospital admission during the index hospital stay. The primary outcome of interest was time to readmission to the index facility. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to model the adjusted association between positive clinical culture result and time to readmission and to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Results.Among 136,513 index admissions, the prevalence of hospital-associated positive clinical culture result for 1 of the 3 organisms of interest was 3%, and 35% of patients were readmitted to the index facility within 1 year after discharge. Patients with a positive clinical culture obtained more than 48 hours after hospital admission had an increased hazard of readmission (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.33–1.46) after adjusting for age, sex, index admission length of stay, intensive care unit stay, Charlson comorbidity index, and year of hospital admission.Conclusions.Patients with healthcare-associated infections may be at increased risk of hospital readmission. These findings may be used to impact health outcomes after discharge from the hospital and to encourage better infection prevention efforts.

Download Full-text

The HOSPITAL score as a predictor of 30 day readmission in a university affiliated community hospital

10.7287/peerj.preprints.2093 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Robert Robinson

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Hospital Readmission ◽

Medical Center ◽

Hospital Readmissions ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Medical Patients ◽

Value Based Purchasing ◽

Discriminatory Ability ◽

Kaplan Meier ◽

Increased Risk

Introduction Hospital readmissions are common, expensive, and a key target of the Medicare Value Based Purchasing (VBP) program. Risk assessment tools have been developed to identify patients at high risk of hospital readmission so they can be targeted for interventions aimed at reducing the rate of readmission. One such tool is the HOSPITAL score that uses 7 readily available clinical variables to predict the risk of readmission within 30 days of discharge. The HOSPITAL score has been internationally validated in large academic medical centers. This study aims to determine if the HOSPITAL score is similarly useful in a moderate sized university affiliated hospital in the midwestern United States. Materials and Methods All adult medical patients discharged from the SIU-SOM Hospitalist service from Memorial Medical Center from October 15, 2015 to March 16, 2016, were studied retrospectively to determine if the HOSPITAL score was a significant predictor of hospital readmission within 30 days. Results During the study period, 998 discharges were recorded for the SIU-SOM Hospitalist service. The analysis includes data for the 963 patients who were discharged alive. Of these patients, 118 (12%) were readmitted to the same hospital within 30 days. The patients who were readmitted were less likely to have a length of stay greater than or equal to 5 days (45% vs. 59%, p = 0.003) but were more likely to have been admitted to the hospital within the last year. A receiver operating characteristic evaluation of the HOSPITAL score for this patient population shows a C statistic of 0.762 (95% CI 0.720 - 0.805), indicating good discrimination for hospital readmission. Kaplan-Meier analysis of 30-day readmission free survival showed a significant (p < 0.001) increase in the risk of readmission in patients with a HOSPITAL score of 5 or more. Discussion This single center retrospective study indicates that the HOSPITAL score has good discriminatory ability to predict hospital readmissions within 30 days for a medical hospitalist service a university-affiliated hospital. This data for all causes of hospital readmission is comparable to the discriminatory ability of the HOSPITAL score in the international validation study (C statistics of 0.72 vs. 0.762) conducted at considerably larger hospitals (975 average beds vs 507 at Memorial Medical Center) for potentially avoidable hospital readmissions. Higher risk patients, identified as having a HOSPITAL score of 5 or more, clearly show an increased risk of hospital readmission within 30 days. Conclusions The internationally validated HOSPITAL score may be a useful tool in moderate sized community hospitals to identify patients at high risk of hospital readmission within 30 days. This easy to use scoring system using readily available data can be used as part of interventional strategies to reduce the rate of hospital readmission.

Download Full-text

Safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination in patients receiving systemic anticancer therapy.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2020.39.28_suppl.245 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽

pp. 245-245

Author(s):

Mahir Khan ◽

Ryan Huu-Tuan Nguyen ◽

James Love ◽

Alexander Krule ◽

Michael Weinfeld ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cancer Treatment ◽

Vaccine Dose ◽

Female Gender ◽

Anticancer Therapy ◽

The United States ◽

Hospitalization Rate ◽

Asian Ethnicity ◽

Treatment Regimens ◽

Patients With Cancer ◽

Increased Risk

245 Background: Patients with cancer who have been treated with systemic anticancer therapy are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 and have been considered a high-priority group for COVID-19 vaccination in the United States. There is limited guidance and data on the appropriate timing of COVID-19 vaccination relative to receipt of systemic anticancer therapy. Methods: We queried the electronic medical record at the University of Illinois Hospital for patients with gastrointestinal, breast, lung, genitourinary, and head and neck tumors who had received intravenous systemic anticancer therapy between January 1, 2021 and May 25, 2021. Baseline variables were obtained as well as details of cancer treatment, vaccination timing relative to cancer treatment, and clinical outcomes. Results: A total of 274 patients received intravenous systemic anticancer therapy during the study period, of which 161 (58.8%) received at least one vaccine dose, and 138 (42.7%) were fully vaccinated. Of the 122 patients who received cancer treatment within 30 days of any vaccine dose, the median age was 64, and 72 (59%) were female gender. Race distribution was 50% Black, 15.6% White, 3.3% Asian; ethnicity was 24.6% Hispanic and 73% not-Hispanic. Treatment regimens consisted of 37.7% chemotherapy, 25.4% immunotherapy, 27.9% combination therapy, and 9.0% targeted therapy. For those who received anticancer therapy within 30 days of a vaccine, median time between any vaccination and treatment was 10 days (range 0-29 days). For those who had at least 60 days of follow-up after first vaccination, all-cause hospitalization rate was 22.4% (23/106). There was no statistical difference in all-cause 60-day hospitalization rate between those who received vaccination within 5 days of anticancer therapy versus those who received it between 6 and 30 days from anticancer therapy (14.3% vs 28.1%, p = 0.1). One patient (0.8%) developed a COVID-19 illness after any vaccine and did not require hospitalization. Conclusions: We observed safe and efficacious COVID-19 vaccination of patients with cancer receiving systemic IV anticancer therapy. COVID-19 infection after vaccination was rare, with no cases requiring hospitalization for COVID-19 illness post-vaccination in this cohort. All-cause hospitalization rates were similar among patients who received a vaccine within or after 5 days of receiving systemic anticancer therapy, suggesting vaccination side effect tolerability. Further quality improvement studies are needed on interventions to increase vaccination rates in this vulnerable population.

Download Full-text

Hospital Readmissions: Patient, Carer and Clinician Views

Acute Medicine Journal ◽

10.52964/amja.0142 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 5 (3) ◽

pp. 104-107

Author(s):

Elinor Kirk ◽

◽

M K Prasad ◽

Ahmed H Abdelhafiz ◽

◽

...

Keyword(s):

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽

Hospital Readmission ◽

Readmission Rate ◽

Medical Condition ◽

Hospital Readmissions ◽

Chronic Obstructive ◽

Medical Patients ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽

Coronary Syndrome

Aim: To explore patients, carers, and clinician views and identify factors, which affect the likelihood of hospital readmission. Methods: A cross sectional retrospective study of adult medical patients readmitted to hospital within 28 days of discharge. Medical and nursing records were reviewed and patients and their carers were interviewed regarding their views about their discharge and readmission. Data were collected regarding demographic, social and medical profiles. Results: Seventy-seven patients were readmitted over a five-week period out of 1289 patients discharged during the previous five weeks, representing a 6% readmission rate. Mean (SD) age of readmitted patients was 71.3 (14.6) years. Forty patients (51.9%) were aged ≥75 and 39 (50.6%) were males. Mean (SD) number of comorbidities was 3.68 (1.82). Mean (SD) number of medications was 7.79 (4.14). Most common reasons for readmission were exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and acute coronary syndrome. Mean (SD) time to readmission was 11.6 (8.2) days. Fifty (64.9%) patients were readmitted within 14 days of discharge. Forty eight (62.3%) patients were readmitted with the same medical condition as their previous discharge. Fifty (64.9%) patients and 45 (66.2%) carers felt that discharge was appropriate. Forty five (58.0%) patients and 44 (57.0%) carers thought that readmission was unavoidable. Clinicians considered 56 (72.7%) discharges appropriate and 55 (71.5%) readmissions unavoidable. A trend towards higher readmission rate among patients ≥ 75 years was noted (7.2% vs 5.1%, p=0.1). Conclusion: Although the majority of discharges are appropriate, up to a third of readmissions may be avoidable in the views of carers, patients and clinicians. Patients and carers should be consulted regarding readiness for discharge before leaving hospital.

Download Full-text

Association of Rehabilitation Intensity for Stroke and Risk of Hospital Readmission

Physical Therapy ◽

10.2522/ptj.20140610 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 95 (12) ◽

pp. 1660-1667 ◽

Cited By ~ 23

Author(s):

A. Williams Andrews ◽

Dongmei Li ◽

Janet K. Freburger

Keyword(s):

Confidence Interval ◽

Acute Care ◽

Hospital Readmission ◽

Proportional Hazards ◽

Cohort Analysis ◽

Hospital Readmissions ◽

Illness Severity ◽

Cox Proportional Hazards ◽

Hazard Ratio ◽

Increased Risk

Background Little is known about the use of rehabilitation in the acute care setting and its impact on hospital readmissions. Objective The objective of this study was to examine the association between the intensity of rehabilitation services received during the acute care stay for stroke and the risk of 30-day and 90-day hospital readmission. Design A retrospective cohort analysis of all acute care hospitals in Arkansas and Florida was conducted. Methods Patients (N=64,065) who were admitted for an incident stroke in 2009 or 2010 were included. Rehabilitation intensity was categorized as none, low, medium-low, medium-high, or high based on the sum and distribution of physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy charges within each hospital. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios, controlling for demographic characteristics, illness severity, comorbidities, hospital variables, and state. Results Relative to participants who received the lowest intensity therapy, those who received higher-intensity therapy had a decreased risk of 30-day readmission. The risk was lowest for the highest-intensity group (hazard ratio=0.86; 95% confidence interval=0.79, 0.93). Individuals who received no therapy were at an increased risk of hospital readmission relative to those who received low-intensity therapy (hazard ratio=1.30; 95% confidence interval=1.22, 1.40). The findings were similar, but with smaller effects, for 90-day readmission. Furthermore, patients who received higher-intensity therapy had more comorbidities and greater illness severity relative to those who received lower-intensity therapy. Limitations The results of the study are limited in scope and generalizability. Also, the study may not have adequately accounted for all potentially important covariates. Conclusions Receipt of and intensity of rehabilitation therapy in the acute care of stroke is associated with a decreased risk of hospital readmission.

Download Full-text

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.19.01461 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 38 (5) ◽

pp. 496-520 ◽

Cited By ~ 168

Author(s):

Nigel S. Key ◽

Alok A. Khorana ◽

Nicole M. Kuderer ◽

Kari Bohlke ◽

Agnes Y.Y. Lee ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Venous Thromboembolism ◽

Medical Condition ◽

Oral Anticoagulants ◽

Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽

Signs And Symptoms ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Thromboembolism Prophylaxis ◽

Vte Prophylaxis ◽

Patients With Cancer ◽

Increased Risk

PURPOSE To provide updated recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. METHODS PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published from August 1, 2014, through December 4, 2018. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and revise previous recommendations as needed. RESULTS The systematic review included 35 publications on VTE prophylaxis and treatment and 18 publications on VTE risk assessment. Two RCTs of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer reported that edoxaban and rivaroxaban are effective but are linked with a higher risk of bleeding compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with GI and potentially genitourinary cancers. Two additional RCTs reported on DOACs for thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer at increased risk of VTE. RECOMMENDATIONS Changes to previous recommendations: Clinicians may offer thromboprophylaxis with apixaban, rivaroxaban, or LMWH to selected high-risk outpatients with cancer; rivaroxaban and edoxaban have been added as options for VTE treatment; patients with brain metastases are now addressed in the VTE treatment section; and the recommendation regarding long-term postoperative LMWH has been expanded. Re-affirmed recommendations: Most hospitalized patients with cancer and an acute medical condition require thromboprophylaxis throughout hospitalization. Thromboprophylaxis is not routinely recommended for all outpatients with cancer. Patients undergoing major cancer surgery should receive prophylaxis starting before surgery and continuing for at least 7 to 10 days. Patients with cancer should be periodically assessed for VTE risk, and oncology professionals should provide patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

Download Full-text