Key result
Community paramedicine transitional care shows no benefit over matched controls for 30-day inpatient readmissions.
Why the study?
To measure the effect of a mobile integrated health community paramedicine transitional care program on hospital utilization, emergency department visits, and charges.
Does a mobile integrated health community paramedicine transitional care program reduce inpatient readmission within 30 days of discharge in adults discharged to home from internal/family medicine services?
Observational (n=5,994)
Yes
Does a mobile integrated health community paramedicine transitional care program reduce inpatient readmission within 30 days of discharge in adults discharged to home from internal/family medicine services?
Effect estimate: IRR 1.19 (95% CI 0.89, 1.60)
Absolute Event Rate: 0.22% vs 0.2%
A mobile integrated health community paramedicine transitional care program did not significantly reduce short-term health care utilization or charges compared to propensity-matched controls.
Should not yet change transitional care practice; leaves open efficacy of community paramedicine programs in randomized trials.
OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of a mobile integrated health community paramedicine (MIH-CP) transitional care program on hospital utilization, emergency department visits, and charges. DATA SOURCES: Retrospective secondary data from the electronic health record and regional health information exchange were used to analyze patients discharged from a large academic medical center and an affiliated community hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, May 2018-October 2019. STUDY DESIGN: We performed an observational study comparing patients enrolled in an MIH-CP program to propensity-matched controls. Propensity scores were calculated using measures of demographics, clinical characteristics, social determinants of health, and prior health care utilization. The primary outcome is inpatient readmission within 30 days of discharge. Secondary outcomes include excess days in acute care 30 days after discharge and emergency department visits, observation hospitalizations, and total health care charges within 30 and 60 days of discharge. DATA COLLECTION: Included patients were over 18 years old, discharged to home from internal/family medicine services, and live in eligible ZIP codes. The intervention group was enrolled in the MIH-CP program; controls met inclusion criteria but were not enrolled during the study period. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The adjusted model showed no difference in 30-day inpatient readmission between 464 enrolled patients and propensity-matched controls (adjusted incidence rate ratio = 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.89, 1.60]). There was a higher rate of observation hospitalizations within 30 days of index discharge for MIH-CP patients (adjusted incidence rate ratio = 1.78, 95% CI = [1.01, 3.14]). This difference did not persist at 60 days, and there were no differences in other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference in short-term health care utilization or charges between patients enrolled in an MIH-CP transitional care program and propensity-matched controls. This highlights the importance of well-controlled, robust evaluations of effectiveness in novel care-delivery systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gingold et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Hospital discharge with complex medical and social needs (n=5,994). Mobile integrated health community paramedicine (MIH-CP) transitional care program vs. Propensity-matched controls was evaluated on Inpatient readmission within 30 days of discharge (IRR 1.19, 95% CI 0.89, 1.60). The mobile integrated health community paramedicine transitional care program showed no significant difference in 30-day inpatient readmissions compared to propensity-matched controls (adjusted IRR 1.19).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: