The at-discharge PREADM-H model predicted 30-day emergency readmissions with a C-statistic of 0.68 (95% CI 0.67-0.70) and a positive predictive value of 43.0% in the highest-risk category.
Cohort (n=35,156)
Yes
Does the timing of readmission risk prediction (at admission vs at discharge) affect the identification of high-risk patients in hospitalized adults ≥65 years?
A two time-point approach using preadmission data to identify high-risk patients early and an 'all-hospital' model at discharge optimizes the identification of patients at risk for 30-day readmission.
Effect estimate: C-statistic 0.68 (95% CI 0.67-0.70)
BACKGROUND: Most of readmission prediction models are implemented at the time of patient discharge. However, interventions which include an early in-hospital component are critical in reducing readmissions and improving patient outcomes. Thus, at-discharge high-risk identification may be too late for effective intervention. Nonetheless, the tradeoff between early versus at-discharge prediction and the optimal timing of the risk prediction model application remains to be determined. We examined a high-risk patient selection process with readmission prediction models using data available at two time points: at admission and at the time of hospital discharge. METHODS: An historical prospective study of hospitalized adults (≥65 years) discharged alive from internal medicine units in Clalit's (the largest integrated payer-provider health fund in Israel) general hospitals in 2015. The outcome was all-cause 30-day emergency readmissions to any internal medicine ward at any hospital. We used the previously validated Preadmission Readmission Detection Model (PREADM) and developed a new model incorporating PREADM with hospital data (PREADM-H). We compared the percentage of overlap between the models and calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) for the subgroups identified by each model separately and by both models. RESULTS: The final cohort included 35,156 index hospital admissions. The PREADM-H model included 17 variables with a C-statistic of 0.68 (95% CI: 0.67-0.70) and PPV of 43.0% in the highest-risk categories. Of patients categorized by the PREADM-H in the highest-risk decile, 78% were classified similarly by the PREADM. The 22% (n = 229) classified by the PREADM-H at the highest decile, but not by the PREADM, had a PPV of 37%. Conversely, those classified by the PREADM into the highest decile but not by the PREADM-H (n = 218) had a PPV of 31%. CONCLUSIONS: The timing of readmission risk prediction makes a difference in terms of the population identified at each prediction time point - at-admission or at-discharge. Our findings suggest that readmission risk identification should incorporate a two time-point approach in which preadmission data is used to identify high-risk patients as early as possible during the index admission and an "all-hospital" model is applied at discharge to identify those that incur risk during the hospital stay.
Flaks‐Manov et al. (Wed,) conducted a cohort in Hospitalized adults discharged alive from internal medicine units (n=35,156). PREADM-H model (at-discharge prediction) vs. PREADM model (at-admission prediction) was evaluated on All-cause 30-day emergency readmissions to any internal medicine ward at any hospital (C-statistic 0.68, 95% CI 0.67-0.70). The at-discharge PREADM-H model predicted 30-day emergency readmissions with a C-statistic of 0.68 (95% CI 0.67-0.70) and a positive predictive value of 43.0% in the highest-risk category.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: