Admitted to Hospital #1, Readmitted to #2. What happens to mortality?

By  |  December 5, 2014 | 


Unless I have a pressing inpatient problem in need of a subspecialty consult, I defer to the outpatient setting.  This goes double if the patient’s PMD practices elsewhere.   You can guarantee any benefit of “urgent” consultation will be outweighed by the harms of siloed care and information drops when we set the patient adrift in the community.  Better the patient sees a colleague of their regular doctor.  At least the discharging doc will know treatment inertia moved in the right direction, lowering the risk of an adverse event.

Along those lines, we don’t have much outcomes data when providers disaggregate care.   Folks move from a familiar to unknown clinical setting—and the EMRs of today can’t create order from chaos.   Moreover, we know little when a patient, in the continuum of an episode of illness, leaves a hospital and then reappears in another facility days or weeks later.  Until now.

Just released, Care Fragmentation in the Postdischarge Period: Surgical Readmissions, Distance of Travel, and Postoperative Mortality, looks at that very question.  One of the authors, Ashish Jha, has appeared in the blog before, and publishes prodigiously on the subjects of quality and in particular, readmissions.

The authors looked at a large swath of readmitted surgical patients (93K)—all Medicare and undergoing major procedures–and focused on a subgroup presenting to a second hospital within 30 days of discharge (23K).  They controlled for hospital-level covariates including size, teaching status, ownership, composite surgical volume, rural-urban status, distance from facility, and percentage of discharged patients who were Medicare beneficiaries.

What did they find?

JAMA 1 Network   JAMA Surgery   Care Fragmentation in the Postdischarge Period   Surgical Readmissions, Distance of Travel, and Postoperative Mortality (2)

Fragmented care, again, even after controlling for the usual suspects—especially distance, may contribute to a higher mortality rate.  The absolute mortality  difference was 1.7% (4.1% vs 5.8%), suggesting that if this effect were causal, one would have to avoid 59 readmissions to a different hospital to save one life.

With our experience in care transitions (not good), hospitalists should not find the data surprising.

Obviously, given the observational nature of the study, the use of administrative claims, and risk of confounding, the authors can only speculate disjointed treatment plays a part in outcome decline.  However,  it seems foolhardy to assign the results to chance alone.

The investigators conclude with policy solutions:

Although we are unsure why readmission to a different hospital is associated with higher mortality, our findings suggest an important area for hospitals and policy makers to focus their efforts. To improve outcomes for readmitted patients, hospitals might focus on 1 of 2 (or both) strategies. First, they could make more of an effort to bring patients with complications back to the original hospitals. Second, they might focus on improving continuity of care by focusing on better clinical data exchange and better clinical integration.

Obvious fixes and chants we have recited for years.  It’s just a matter of when.

The paper also includes a map of fragmentation variation.  No surprise, care is all over the map.  No pun intended:


JAMA Network   JAMA Surgery   Care Fragmentation in the Postdischarge Period   Surgical Readmissions, Distance of Travel, and Postoperative Mortality

Leave A Comment

About the Author:

Brad Flansbaum
Bradley Flansbaum, DO, MPH, MHM works for Geisinger Health System in Danville, PA in both the divisions of hospital medicine and population health. He began working as a hospitalist in 1996, at the inception of the hospital medicine movement. He is a founding member of the Society of Hospital Medicine and served as a board member and officer. He speaks nationally in promoting hospital medicine and has presented at many statewide meetings and conferences. He is also actively involved in house staff education. Currently, he serves on the SHM Public Policy Committee and has an interest in payment policy, healthcare market competition, health disparities, cost-effectiveness analysis, and pain and palliative care. He is SHM’s delegate for the AMA House of Delegates. Dr. Flansbaum received his undergraduate degree from Union College in Schenectady, NY and attended medical school at the New York College of Osteopathic Medicine. He completed his residency and chief residency in Internal Medicine at Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New York. He received his M.P.H. in Health Policy and Management at Columbia University. He is a political junky, and loves to cook, stay fit, read non-fiction, listen to many genres of music, and is a resident of Danville, PA.


Related Posts

By  | July 19, 2018 |  0
So out in the varied land of hospital medicine, I have noticed something that I have no clear explanation for. It turns out there is often a gap in productivity between that of NP/PA providers and physicians. The range of the gap varies wildly – I just got off the phone with a HM group […]
By  | June 26, 2018 |  2
JAMA just published the largest trial I have seen on a Hospital at Home (HAH) model to date and the first one out in the last few years. It comes from Mount Sinai in NYC–who have led the pack in this style of care if national presentations are the judge. They launched the program three […]
By  | June 7, 2018 |  0
Everywhere I go these days, one of the top questions on the minds of hospital leaders and hospitalists alike is, “How can we improve hospitalist patient satisfaction scores?” It’s a dilemma. There are people who know way more about this subject than me, but I’m not aware of anyone who has really cracked the nut. […]