Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28558095›Full record

SynthesisJAMA internal medicine2017

Economic Evaluation of Quality Improvement Interventions Designed to Prevent Hospital Readmission: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Teryl K Nuckols, Emmett Keeler, Sally Morton, Laura Anderson, Brian J Doyle, Joshua Pevnick, Marika Booth, Roberta Shanman, Aziza Arifkhanova, Paul Shekelle

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Teryl K NuckolsCedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California2RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
Emmett KeelerRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
Sally MortonCollege of Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.
Laura AndersonCedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California4Jonathan and Karin Fielding School of Public Health, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
Brian J DoyleJonathan and Karin Fielding School of Public Health, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles5VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California.
Joshua PevnickCedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
Marika BoothRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
Roberta ShanmanRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
Aziza ArifkhanovaRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
Paul ShekelleRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California5VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California.

Funding

When Is Quality Improvement Cost Saving, Cost Effective, or Not a Good Value?R01HS022644 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI NUCKOLS, TERYL · 2013 to 2013
$997k
Minimizing Errors in Medication Histories Obtained at Hospital AdmissionK23AG049181 · NIA · CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER · PI PEVNICK, JOSHUA M · 2015 to 2018
$707k
AHRQ HHS R01 HS022644NIA NIH HHS K23 AG049181
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Quality improvement (QI) interventions can reduce hospital readmission, but little is known about their economic value. Objective: To systematically review economic evaluations of QI interventions designed to reduce readmissions. Data Sources: Databases searched included PubMed, Econlit, the Centre for Reviews & Dissemination Economic Evaluations, New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report, and Worldcat (January 2004 to July 2016). Study Selection: Dual reviewers selected English-language studies from high-income countries that evaluated organizational or structural changes to reduce hospital readmission, and that reported program and readmission-related costs. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual reviewers extracted intervention characteristics, study design, clinical effectiveness, study quality, economic perspective, and costs. We calculated the risk difference and net costs to the health system in 2015 US dollars. Weighted least-squares regression analyses tested predictors of the risk difference and net costs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes measures included the risk difference in readmission rates and incremental net cost. This systematic review and data analysis is reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Of 5205 articles, 50 unique studies were eligible, including 25 studies in populations limited to heart failure (HF) that included 5768 patients, 21 in general populations that included 10 445 patients, and 4 in unique populations. Fifteen studies lasted up to 30 days while most others lasted 6 to 24 months. Based on regression analyses, readmissions declined by an average of 12.1% among patients with HF (95% CI, 8.3%-15.9%; P < .001; based on 22 studies with complete data) and by 6.3% among general populations (95% CI, 4.0%-8.7%; P < .001; 18 studies). The mean net savings to the health system per patient was $972 among patients with HF (95% CI, -$642 to $2586; P = .23; 24 studies), and the mean net loss was $169 among general populations (95% CI, -$2610 to $2949; P = .90; 21 studies), reflecting nonsignificant differences. Among general populations, interventions that engaged patients and caregivers were associated with greater net savings ($1714 vs -$6568; P = .006). Conclusions and Relevance: Multicomponent QI interventions can be effective at reducing readmissions relative to the status quo, but net costs vary. Interventions that engage general populations of patients and their caregivers may offer greater value to the health system, but the implications for patients and caregivers are unknown.

Indexed as

Medical OveruseCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansOrganizational InnovationPatient ReadmissionQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID28558095
PMCPMC5710454

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.