Key result
3M-PPR software fails to distinguish care quality between flagged and nonflagged AMI or HF readmissions.
Why the study?
Does the 3M-PPR software identify differences in case-level quality of care between flagged and nonflagged readmissions for acute myocardial infarction and heart failure?
Observational (n=200)
Yes
Does the 3M-PPR software identify differences in case-level quality of care between flagged and nonflagged readmissions for acute myocardial infarction and heart failure?
The 3M-PPR software does not distinguish differences in case-level quality of care among VA acute myocardial infarction and heart failure readmissions.
Does not support 3M-PPR for flagging preventable AMI or HF readmissions; leaves open its validity and should not yet change practice.
BACKGROUND: The 3M Potentially Preventable Readmissions (3M-PPR) software matches clinically related index admission and readmission diagnoses that may signify in-hospital or postdischarge quality problems. To assess whether the PPR algorithm identifies preventable readmissions, we compared processes of care between PPR software-flagged and nonflagged cases. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using 2006 to 2010 national VA administrative data, we identified acute myocardial infarction and heart failure discharges associated with 30-day all-cause readmissions, then flagged cases (PPR-Yes/PPR-No) using the 3M-PPR software. To assess care quality, we abstracted medical records of 100 readmissions per condition using tools containing explicit processes organized into admission work-up, in-hospital evaluation/treatment, discharge readiness, postdischarge period. We derived quality scores, scaled to a maximum of 25 per section (maximum total score=100) and compared cases on total and section-specific mean scores. For acute myocardial infarction, 77 of 100 cases were flagged as PPR-Yes. Section quality scores were highest for in-hospital evaluation/treatment (20.5±2.8) and lowest for postdischarge care (6.8±9.1). Total and section-related mean scores did not differ by PPR status; respective PPR-Yes versus PPR-No total scores were 61.6±11.1 and 60.4±9.4; P=0.98. For heart failure, 86 of 100 cases were flagged as PPR-Yes. Section scores were highest for discharge readiness (18.8±2.4) and lowest for postdischarge care (7.3±8.1). Like acute myocardial infarction, total and section-related mean scores did not differ by PPR status; PPR-Yes versus PPR-No total scores were 61.2±10.8 and 63.4±7.0, respectively; P=0.47. CONCLUSIONS: Among VA acute myocardial infarction and heart failure readmissions, the 3M-PPR software does not distinguish differences in case-level quality of care. Whether 3M-PPR software better identifies preventable readmissions by using other methods to capture poorly documented processes or performing different comparisons requires further study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Borzecki et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Acute myocardial infarction and heart failure (n=200). 3M-PPR software flagged cases (PPR-Yes) vs. Nonflagged cases (PPR-No) was evaluated on Total quality of care score (maximum 100). The 3M-PPR software did not distinguish differences in total quality of care scores between flagged and nonflagged readmissions for AMI (61.6 vs 60.4; P=0.98) or heart failure (61.2 vs 63.4; P=0.47).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: