Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31242886›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2019

Identifying patients at highest-risk: the best timing to apply a readmission predictive model.

Natalie Flaks-Manov, Maxim Topaz, Moshe Hoshen, Ran D Balicer, Efrat Shadmi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Current Trends in Readmission Prediction: An Overview of Approaches.Arabian journal for science and engineering · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors.

Natalie Flaks-ManovClalit Research Institute, Clalit Health Services, Shoham 2, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Maxim TopazCheryl Spencer Department of Nursing, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, 31905, Haifa, Israel.
Moshe HoshenClalit Research Institute, Clalit Health Services, Shoham 2, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Ran D BalicerClalit Research Institute, Clalit Health Services, Shoham 2, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Efrat ShadmiClalit Research Institute, Clalit Health Services, Shoham 2, Ramat Gan, Israel. eshadmi@univ.haifa.ac.il.ORCID 0000-0001-9752-5724

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost 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.

methodsAn 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.

resultsThe 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%.

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

Patient ReadmissionAgedAged, 80 and overEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansMalePatient DischargePredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesRisk FactorsTime FactorsAll-cause readmissionElectronic medical recordsTiming of readmission predictive model

Identifiers

PMID31242886
PMCPMC6595564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.