Key result
Readmissions education initiative more than doubles identification of preventable readmissions to 46%.
Why the study?
A literature gap exists in educating internal medicine residents about hospital readmissions and how to prevent them.
Does a readmissions education initiative improve internal medicine residents' identification of preventable readmissions and their perception of involvement in reducing readmissions?
Does a readmissions education initiative improve internal medicine residents' identification of preventable readmissions and their perception of involvement in reducing readmissions?
A system-based educational initiative successfully improved internal medicine residents' ability to identify preventable readmissions and their perceived involvement in quality improvement, though it did not significantly reduce actual readmission rates.
May improve resident identification of preventable readmissions and engagement; hypothesis-generating, should not yet change practice.
BACKGROUND: A literature gap exists in educating internal medicine residents about hospital readmissions and how to prevent them. INTERVENTION: The study aimed to implement a readmissions education initiative for general internal medicine inpatient resident teams in 3 general practice units at an urban, tertiary hospital. METHODS: Senior residents were given access to a daily list of readmissions, used a readmission assessment tool to investigate causes and to assess whether each readmission was preventable, led a monthly general practice unit team meeting to discuss each case, and presented their findings at the monthly multidisciplinary readmissions meeting for additional feedback. For program evaluation, we hypothesized that the "preventable" readmissions count tracked via the readmissions assessment tool would increase as residents became better educated on the root causes of readmissions. We also conducted a survey to assess perception of the readmissions education initiative. RESULTS: "Preventable" readmissions increased from 21% for the first 3 months of the intervention (September-November 2010) to 46% for the most recent 3 months (January-March 2011). The survey showed that 98% (41 of 42) of respondents who had attended a multidisciplinary readmissions meeting felt involved in an effort to review or improve the rate of hospital readmissions, whereas only 40% (21 of 53) of the group that never attended a session shared the same answer. CONCLUSIONS: This initiative required few resources, and it appeared to help residents identify "preventable" reasons for readmissions, as well as increased their perceptions of being actively involved in reducing hospital readmissions. The intervention was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in readmissions, which may be influenced primarily by multiple factors outside residents' control.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Njeim et al. (2012) studied Hospital readmissions (n=95). Readmissions education initiative vs. No attendance / baseline was evaluated on Perception of being involved in an effort to review or improve the rate of hospital readmissions. A readmissions education initiative increased the identification of preventable readmissions from 21% to 46% and made 98% of attendees feel involved in improving readmission rates compared to 40% of non-attendees.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: