ArticleFamily practice2020
Validity of a tool designed to assess the preventability of potentially preventable hospitalizations for chronic conditions.
Article in Family practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment tools addressing avoidable care transitions in older adults: a systematic literature review.European geriatric medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Error and Timeliness Analysis for Using Machine Learning to Predict Asthma Hospital Visits: Retrospective Cohort Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Developing a Machine Learning Model to Predict Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations: Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Article
- Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPotentially preventable hospitalizations (PPH) are defined as unplanned hospital admissions which could potentially have been prevented with the provision of effective, timely outpatient care. To better understand and ultimately reduce rates of PPH, a means of identifying those which are actually preventable is required. The Preventability Assessment Tool (PAT) was designed for use by hospital clinicians to assess the preventability of unplanned admissions for chronic conditions.
objectiveThe present study examined the ability of the PAT to distinguish between those unplanned admissions which are preventable and those which are not, compared to the assessments of an Expert Panel.
methodsData were collected between November 2014 and June 2017 at three hospitals in NSW, Australia. Participants were community-dwelling patients with unplanned hospital admissions for congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes complications or angina pectoris. A nurse and a doctor caring for the patient made assessments of the preventability of the admission using the PAT. Expert Panels made assessments of the preventability of each admission based on a comprehensive case report and consensus process.
resultsThere was little concordance between the hospital doctors and nurses regarding the preventability of admissions, nor between the assessments of the Expert Panel and the hospital nurse or the Expert Panel and the hospital doctor.
conclusionsThe PAT demonstrated poor concurrent validity and is not a valid tool for assessing the preventability of unplanned hospital admissions. The use of Expert Panels provides a more rigorous approach to assessing the preventability of such admissions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.