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

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.

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

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.

scholarly journals The HOSPITAL score as a predictor of 30 day readmission in a retrospective study at a university affiliated community hospital

PeerJ ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. e2441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Hospital Readmission ◽  
Goodness Of Fit ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Hospital Readmissions ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Brier Score ◽  
Goodness Of Fit Test ◽  
Discriminatory Ability

IntroductionHospital 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 seven 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 MethodsAll adult medical patients discharged from the SIU-SOM Hospitalist service from Memorial Medical Center (MMC) 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.ResultsDuring the study period, 998 discharges were recorded for the hospitalist service. The analysis includes data for the 931 discharges. Patients who died during the hospital stay, were transferred to another hospital, or left against medical advice were excluded. Of these patients, 109 (12%) were readmitted to the same hospital within 30 days. The patients who were readmitted were more likely to have a length of stay greater than or equal to 5 days (55% vs. 41%,p= 0.005) and were more likely to have been admitted more than once to the hospital within the last year (100% vs. 49%,p< 0.001). A receiver operating characteristic evaluation of the HOSPITAL score for this patient population shows a C statistic of 0.77 (95% CI [0.73–0.81]), indicating good discrimination for hospital readmission. The Brier score for the HOSPITAL score in this setting was 0.10, indicating good overall performance. The Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness of fit test shows aχ2value of 1.63 with apvalue of 0.20.DiscussionThis 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 at 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. 0.77) conducted at considerably larger hospitals (975 average beds vs. 507 at MMC) for potentially avoidable hospital readmissions.ConclusionsThe 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.

scholarly journals The HOSPITAL score and LACE index for predicting the risk of hospital readmission do not show sex discrimination in a retrospective study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Risk Prediction ◽  
Hospital Readmission ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Hospital Readmissions ◽  
Sex Discrimination ◽  
Medical Patients ◽  
Rapid Improvement ◽  
Prediction Tools

AbstractIntroductionThe perceived absence of human implicit and explicit biases, scalability, and the potential for rapid improvement with algorithmic decision-making systems make compelling arguments for the widespread use of this technology. Unfortunately, real-world performance of some algorithmic decision-making systems demonstrates the reinforcement of discriminatory human biases in a way that is hidden from the human user. This study aims to retrospectively investigate if the widely used HOSPITAL score and LACE index used to predict hospital readmissions exhibit bias on the basis of sex.Materials and MethodsAll adult medical patients discharged from the SIU-School of Medicine (SIU-SOM) Hospitalist service from Memorial Medical Center from January 1, 2015, to January 1, 2017, were studied retrospectively to determine if patient sex had an influence on the ability of the HOSPTIAL score and LACE index to predict the likelihood of any cause hospital readmission within 30 days. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed comparing risk prediction tool performance by sex by measuring the area under the curve (AUC).ResultsThe analysis includes data for the 1781 discharges for 1410 individual patients that met inclusion criteria. Of these discharges, 456 (27%) were readmitted to the same hospital within 30 days. The overall study population was 47% women, had an average age of 63 years and spent an average of 7.9 days in the hospital. Comparison of the performance of the LACE index in women and men showed no differences between AUCs (0.565 and 0.578, p = 0.613) and an ABROCA of 0.013. Sensitivity (67% and 70%), specificity (46% and 46%), PPV (30% and 31%), NPV (80% and 82%) and accuracy (51% and 52%) for the LACE index are very similar for women and men.Comparison of the performance of the HOSPITAL in women and men showed no differences between AUCs (0.56 and 0.58, p = 0.407) and an ABROCA of 0.008 indicating highly similar performance. Sensitivity (16% and 21%), specificity (96% and 95%), PPV (59% and 57%), NPV (77% and 78%) and accuracy (76% and 76%) for the HOSPITAL score are very similar for women and men.Discussion and ConclusionsThe performance of the HOSPITAL and LACE readmission risk prediction tools appears to have equivalent performance when used for women or men in this small, single-center, retrospective study. Further research is needed to explore the potential of bias and discrimination on risk prediction tools used in healthcare.

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

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (10) ◽  
pp. 1153-1158 ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Rates and Types of Medication-Related Problems in Patients Rehospitalized Within 30 Days of Discharge From a Community Hospital

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 47-53
Author(s):  
Julie B. Cooper ◽  
Elizabeth Jeter ◽  
Cory John Sessoms
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Hospital Readmission ◽  
Adverse Drug Events ◽  
Community Hospital ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Hospital Readmissions ◽  
Readmission Rates ◽  
General Internal ◽  
Hospital Readmission Rates ◽  
Context Specific

Background: Impact of medication-related problems (MRPs) on persistently high hospital readmission rates are not well described. Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the rate and type of MRPs attributed to rehospitalization within 30 days of discharge from a general internal medicine hospitalists’ service at a nonacademic medical center. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted evaluating consecutive patients readmitted within 30-days after discharge to home from an internal medicine hospitalist service. Readmissions attributed to MRPs in physician documentation were systematically classified as indication, effectiveness, adverse drug reaction, or nonadherence problems and evaluated for possible preventability. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the rate and type of MRP. Results: Evaluation of consecutive 30-day readmissions (n = 203) to a nonteaching community hospital identified 50.2% of admissions attributed to MRPs. MRPs (n = 102) were categorized as problems of indication (34.3%), efficacy (19.6%), adverse drug events (18.6%), and nonadherence (27.5%). One third of 30-day readmissions in this cohort were attributed to potentially preventable MRPs. Conclusion: MRPs are frequently implicated in 30-day hospital readmissions in a nonteaching community hospital representing an opportunity for context-specific improvements.

scholarly journals S154. TOBACCO SMOKING AND CLINICAL HIGH RISK: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S94-S95
Author(s):  
Andrea De Micheli ◽  
Albertine van Lawick van Pabst ◽  
Enass Yossef ◽  
Philip McGuire ◽  
Paolo Fusar-Poli
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Physical Health ◽  
Tobacco Use ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Clinical High Risk ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Russian Science Citation Index

Abstract Background There is converging evidence that youths at clinical high risk (CHR) are not only likely to develop the first episode of psychosis but also to develop poor physical outcomes. Some physical health risk factors - such as smoking - have been shown to increase the probability of a frank onset of psychosis in those at risk. A meta-analysis conducted in psychotic patients confirmed that daily tobacco use is associated with an increased risk of psychosis. A significant association between any attenuated psychotic symptoms (that characterize CHR state) and cigarette smoking has been recently shown in a study conducted in South London. Nowadays, it is not completely clear how these findings would translate to the CHR population but a better understanding of how physical health parameters could affect psychopathological outcomes could be beneficial for these vulnerable clinical populations. To shed light on the percentage of smokers in CHR populations, an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature has been carried out. Our main aim was to test whether the probability of being a smoker was higher in the CHR subjects or in the control group. Methods The literature search was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We systematically scrutinized from literature inception to 2019 the following on-line databases: Web of Science Core Collection, BIOSIS Citation Index, KCL-Korean Journal Database, MEDLINE, Russian Science Citation Index, SCiELO Citation Index. We have considered all the relevant studies reporting the smoking status in CHR subjects and in control groups. We used the odds ratio (OR) as effect size measure and data were pooled using a random effect approach. Results Preliminary data show that CHR individuals were more likely to use tobacco that matched healthy controls. Specifically, the overall OR of 2.016 (p&lt;.001 95%CI=1.476–2.749) indicated a higher likelihood that CHR individuals would use tobacco compared to controls. Heterogeneity was not significant (I²=30.193 p=0.11). The visual inspection of funnel plots did not reveal a clear suggestion for publication bias and the Egger’s test was non-significant (p=0.10). Discussion Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that is crucial to investigate physical health outcomes such as tobacco use as part of clinical practice in CHR services. Unfortunately, current CHR assessment tools are entirely based on the measurement of psychopathological features and do not include an assessment of these parameters on a regular basis.

scholarly journals Healthcare-Associated Infection and Hospital Readmission

2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 539-544 ◽  
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.

Overuse of DVT Prophylaxis in Medical Inpatients

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 5563-5563 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Deng ◽  
Lisa Thomas ◽  
Huijing Li ◽  
Elvin Varughesekutty ◽  
Qi Shi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Of Bleeding ◽  
Dvt Prophylaxis ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Medical Inpatients ◽  
Nonsurgical Patients

Abstract Introduction: Unfractionated heparin (UFH), or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), is commonly used with mechanical prophylaxis as an anticoagulant to reduce the risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, overuse of these prophylaxes can increase the risk of bleeding, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and associated medical cost. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to determine the incidence of DVT prophylaxis among hospitalized nonsurgical patients in a community medical center. To evaluate the use of the prophylaxes as described above, the investigators collected data on medical inpatients and addressed how to avoid overuse. Method: A retrospective inpatient chart review of 100 general internal medicine patients analyzed data using Padua Prediction Score as the risk estimate for deep venous thrombosis (DVT). High risk for VTE was defined by a cumulative score >=4 and low risk was a score <4. Only patients at increased risk for DVT but not at high risk for bleeding qualified for heparin treatment. Results: A total of 100 patients were surveyed. 54/100 (54%) patients had low risk of DVT with score < 4, and of those 29/54 (53.7%) patients received DVT prophylaxis with SCDs and/or heparin, and 17/54 (31.5%) patients were treated with heparin. All 46 patients with score >= 4 were treated with DVT prophylaxis of which 10 patients were only treated with heparin and 36 patients were given both mechanical and chemical prophylaxis. Collectively, 53.7% of the patients received treatment with DVT prophylaxis (p < 0.001, Chi-Square test). Discussion: In hospital settings, physicians want to avoid DVT or PE so they tend to consider patients as being at moderate risk for DVT without using any method of DVT risk assessment. This leads to unnecessary overuse of DVT prophylaxis on patients and may increase the risk of bleeding and injury. Conclusion: Our data suggests that there DVT prophylaxis including UFH and LMWH was over prescribed among patients with who had marginal risk for DVT in hospitalized nonsurgical patients in a community medical center. Clinical implications: To avoid the overuse of DVT prophylaxis, physicians need to follow guidelines. Education and inclusion of the guidelines in EHRs of information on VTE risk assessment for hospitalized medical patients upon admission may reduce unneeded DVT prophylaxis and the risk of bleeding and costs associated with additional care needs. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals PRISMA Analysis of 30 Day Readmissions to a Tertiary Cancer Hospital

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-56
Author(s):  
Timothy Cooksley ◽  
◽  
Hanneke Merten ◽  
John Kellett ◽  
Mikkel Brabrand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Human Factors ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Quality Indicator ◽  
Hospital Readmission ◽  
Medical Condition ◽  
Hospital Readmissions ◽  
Underlying Condition ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Cancer Hospital ◽  
Increased Risk

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.

scholarly journals Risk for Depressive Symptoms among Hospitalized Women in High-Risk Pregnancy Units during the COVID-19 Pandemic

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 2449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shanny Sade ◽  
Eyal Sheiner ◽  
Tamar Wainstock ◽  
Narkis Hermon ◽  
Shimrit Yaniv Salem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Depression Scale ◽  
High Risk Pregnancy ◽  
Multivariable Logistic Regression ◽  
Risk Pregnancy ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Isolation Period ◽  
Risk For Depression

Objective: Higher rates of mental disorders, specifically depression, were found among affected people in previous epidemiological studies taken after disasters. The aim of the current study was to assess risk for depression among pregnant women hospitalized during the “coronavirus disease 2019” (COVID-19) pandemic, as compared to women hospitalized before the COVID-19 pandemic. Study design: A cross-sectional study was performed among women hospitalized in the high-risk pregnancy units of the Soroka University Medical Center (SUMC). All participating women completed the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), and the results were compared between women hospitalized during the COVID-19 strict isolation period (19 March 2020 and 26 May 2020) and women hospitalized before the COVID-19 pandemic. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to control for potential confounders. Results: Women hospitalized during the COVID-19 strict isolation period (n = 84) had a comparable risk of having a high (>10) EPDS score as compared to women hospitalized before the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 279; 25.0% vs. 29.0%, p = 0.498). These results remained similar in the multivariable logistic regression model, while controlling for maternal age, ethnicity and known mood disorder (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.0, 95% CI 0.52–1.93, p = 0.985). Conclusion: Women hospitalized at the high-risk pregnancy unit during the COVID-19 strict isolation period were not at increased risk for depression, as compared to women hospitalized before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document