Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32407501›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Association of Online Consumer Reviews of Skilled Nursing Facilities With Patient Rehospitalization Rates.

Kira L Ryskina, Anietie U Andy, Kirstin A Manges, Kierra A Foley, Rachel M Werner, Raina M Merchant

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Kira L RyskinaPerelman School of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Anietie U AndyCenter for Digital Health, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia.
Kirstin A MangesPerelman School of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Kierra A FoleyUniversity of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia.
Rachel M WernerPerelman School of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Raina M MerchantLeonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Funding

Postdoctoral Training in Health Services ResearchT32HS026116 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI GROENEVELD, PETER W., WERNER, RACHEL M · 2018 to 2024
$3.8M
Digital Phenotyping and Cardiovascular HealthR01HL141844 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MERCHANT, RAINA · 2019 to 2022
$3.1M
Midcareer Mentoring Award for Patient-Oriented Research in AgingK24AG047908 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI WERNER, RACHEL M · 2014 to 2024
$2.0M
UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF PHYSICIAN INTEGRATION WITHIN NURSING HOMES IN POST-ACUTE CARE OUTCOMESK08AG052572 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI RYSKINA, KIRA L · 2016 to 2020
$821k
Training in Healthcare Financing, Organization and Delivery for Aging PopulationsT32AG051090 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI PAULY, MARK, WERNER, RACHEL M · 2015 to 2019
$652k
AHRQ HHS T32 HS026116NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL141844NIA NIH HHS K08 AG052572NIA NIH HHS K24 AG047908NIA NIH HHS T32 AG051090
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: There are areas of skilled nursing facility (SNF) experience of importance to the public that are not currently included in public reporting initiatives on SNF quality. Whether patients, hospitals, and payers can leverage the information available from unsolicited online reviews to reduce avoidable rehospitalizations from SNFs is unknown. Objectives: To assess the association between rehospitalization rates and online ratings of SNFs; to compare the association of rehospitalization with ratings from a review website vs Medicare Nursing Home Compare (NHC) ratings; and to identify specific topics consistently reported in reviews of SNFs with the highest vs lowest rehospitalization rates using natural language processing. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cross-sectional study of 1536 SNFs with online reviews on Yelp (a website that allows consumers to rate and review businesses and services, scored on a 1- to 5-star rating scale, with 1 star indicating the lowest rating and 5 stars indicating the highest rating) posted between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. The combined data set included 1536 SNFs with 8548 online reviews, NHC ratings, and readmission rates. Main Outcomes and Measures: A mean rating from the review website was calculated through the end of each year. Risk-standardized rehospitalization rates were obtained from NHC. Linear regression was used to measure the association between the rehospitalization rate of a SNF and the online ratings. Natural language processing was used to identify topics associated with reviews of SNFs in the top and bottom quintiles of rehospitalization rates. Results: The 1536 SNFs in the sample had a median of 6 reviews (interquartile range, 3-13 reviews), with a mean (SD) review website rating of 2.7 (1.1). The SNFs with the highest rating on both the review website and NHC had 2.0% lower rehospitalization rates compared with the SNFs with the lowest rating on both websites (21.3%; 95% CI, 20.7%-21.8%; vs 23.3%; 95% CI, 22.7%-24.0%; P = .04). Compared with the NHC ratings alone, review website ratings were associated with an additional 0.4% of the variation in rehospitalization rates across SNFs (adjusted R2 = 0.009 vs adjusted R2 = 0.013; P = .003). Thematic analysis of qualitative comments on the review website for SNFs with high vs low rehospitalization rates identified several areas of importance to the reviewers, such as the quality of physical infrastructure and equipment, staff attitudes and communication with caregivers. Conclusions and Relevance: Skilled nursing facilities with the best rating on both a review website and NHC had slightly lower rehospitalization rates than SNFs with the best rating on NHC alone. However, there was marked variation in the volume of reviews, and many SNF characteristics were underrepresented. Further refinement of the review process is warranted.

Indexed as

Consumer BehaviorMedicareCross-Sectional StudiesHumansInternetPatient ReadmissionRetrospective StudiesSkilled Nursing FacilitiesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID32407501
PMCPMC7225899

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.