Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33276837›Full record

ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings2020

Thirty-Day Re-observation, Chronic Re-observation, and Neighborhood Disadvantage.

Ann M Sheehy, W Ryan Powell, Farah A Kaiksow, William R Buckingham, Christie M Bartels, Jen Birstler, Menggang Yu, Andrea Gilmore Bykovskyi, Fangfang Shi, Amy J H Kind

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ann M SheehyHealth Services and Care Research Program, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. Electronic address: asr@medicine.wisc.edu.
W Ryan PowellHealth Services and Care Research Program, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; Divisions of Geriatrics and Gerontology, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI.
Farah A KaiksowHealth Services and Care Research Program, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI.
William R BuckinghamHealth Services and Care Research Program, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; Applied Population Laboratory, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Christie M BartelsHealth Services and Care Research Program, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI.
Jen BirstlerDepartment of Biostatistics & Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Menggang YuDepartment of Biostatistics & Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Andrea Gilmore BykovskyiHealth Services and Care Research Program, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; School of Nursing, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Fangfang ShiHealth Services and Care Research Program, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; Divisions of Geriatrics and Gerontology, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI.
Amy J H KindHealth Services and Care Research Program, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; Divisions of Geriatrics and Gerontology, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI; Department of Veterans Affairs Geriatrics Research Education and Clinical Center, Madison, WI.
University of Wisconsin–Madison · USWisconsin Department of Health Services · US

Funding

Wisconsin Alzheimer's Disease Research CenterP30AG062715 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI AMY J. KIND · 2019 to 2026
$34.5M
Neighborhood Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Medicare's 30-Day Rehospitalization Policy: Eliminating Rehospitalization Disparities by Informing Policy Design and ImplementationR01MD010243 · NIMHD · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI KIND, AMY J. · 2015 to 2019
$2.8M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG062715NIMHD NIH HHS R01 MD010243
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine whether neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage, as determined by the Area Deprivation Index, increases 30-day hospital re-observation risk. PARTICIPANTS AND

methodsThis retrospective study of 20% Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary observation stays from January 1, 2014, to November 30, 2014, included 319,980 stays among 273,308 beneficiaries. We evaluated risk for a 30-day re-observation following an index observation stay for those living in the 15% most disadvantaged compared with the 85% least disadvantaged neighborhoods.

resultsOverall, 4.5% (270,600 of 6,080,664) of beneficiaries had index observation stays, which varied by disadvantage (4.3% [232,568 of 5,398,311] in the least disadvantaged 85% compared with 5.6% [38,032 of 682,353] in the most disadvantaged 15%). Patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had a higher 30-day re-observation rate (2857 of 41,975; 6.8%) compared with least disadvantaged neighborhoods (13,543 of 278,005; 4.9%); a 43% increased risk (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.55). After adjustment, this risk remained (adjusted OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.22). Discharge to a skilled nursing facility reduced 30-day re-observation risk (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.69), whereas index observation length of stay of 4 or more days (3 midnights) conferred increased risk (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.52); those living in disadvantaged neighborhoods were less likely to discharge to skilled nursing facilities and more likely to have long index stays. Beneficiaries with more than one 30-day re-observation (chronic re-observation) had progressively greater disadvantage by number of stays (adjusted incident rate ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.14). Observation prevalence varied nationally.

conclusionThirty-day re-observation, especially chronic re-observation, is highly associated with socioeconomic neighborhood disadvantage, even after accounting for factors such as race, disability, and Medicaid eligibility. Beneficiaries least able to pay are potentially most vulnerable to costs from serial re-observations and challenges of Medicare observation policy, which may discourage patients from seeking necessary care.

Indexed as

Chronic DiseaseResidence CharacteristicsSocioeconomic FactorsAftercareAgedClinical Observation UnitsFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMedicarePatient ReadmissionRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSkilled Nursing FacilitiesSocial Determinants of Health

Identifiers

PMID33276837
PMCPMC7720926
OpenAlexW3110140107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.