Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30687798›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2019

Patient vs provider perspectives of 30-day hospital readmissions.

Andrea Smeraglio, Paul A Heidenreich, Gomathi Krishnan, Joseph Hopkins, Jonathan Chen, Lisa Shieh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Patients' and providers' perspectives on medication relatedness and potential preventability of hospital readmissions within 30 days of discharge.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Observational
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrea SmeraglioDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0775-7930
Paul A HeidenreichDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Gomathi KrishnanDepartment of Clinical Informatics, Sanford Center for Clinic Informatics, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Joseph HopkinsDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Jonathan ChenDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Lisa ShiehDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Stanford University · USSanford Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To compare patients' and providers' views on contributors to 30-day hospital readmissions. Design: Analysis of a qualitative interview survey between 18 May-30 June 2015. Setting: Interviews were conducted during the 30-day readmission hospitalisation at a single tertiary care academic hospital. Participants: We conducted 178 interviews of readmitted patients. Measures: We queried opinions of what factors patients believed contributed to their rehospitalisation and compared this with the perspective of the index admission provider. The primary outcome was the view that the readmission was preventable. A review by a RN (nurse) case manager also provided an assessment based on patient report, provider report and chart review. Results: Patients were more likely to view a readmission as preventable compared with physicians (p<0.0001). Patients identified system issues (defined as factors controlled by the hospital discharge process) as contributors to their readmission in 58% (103/178) of cases while providers identified system issues as the contributor to a patients' readmission in 2% (2/101) of cases. Patients with poor functional status were more likely to feel the cause of their readmission was due to system issues than patients with better functional status (p=0.03). A RN case manager review determined that in 48% (86/178) of cases the system had some amount of contribution to a patient's readmission. There was no significant difference in belief that the readmission was preventable between the RN case manager and the patient (p=0.47). Conclusions: Readmitted patients often feel that the hospital system contributed to their readmission. Providers did not recognise patient and RN case manager identified issues as contributors to hospital readmissions.

Indexed as

HospitalsAgedFemaleHumansInpatientsInterviews as TopicMalePatient DischargePatient ReadmissionPhysiciansQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementTime Factorsaudit and feedbackhealthcare quality improvementhospital medicinepatient-centred carequality improvement

Identifiers

PMID30687798
PMCPMC6327873
OpenAlexW2911100449

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.