Contributor disclosures are reviewed for conflicts of interest by the editorial group. When found, these are addressed by vetting through a multi-level review process, and through requirements for references to be provided to support the content. Appropriately referenced content is required of all authors and must conform to UpToDate standards of evidence.
INTRODUCTION — Discharging patients from the hospital is a complex process that is fraught with challenges. There were over 35 million hospital discharges in the United States in 2010 . Among Medicare patients, almost 20 percent who are discharged from a hospital are readmitted within 30 days . Unplanned readmissions, at a cost of USD $17.4 billion, accounted for 17 percent of total hospital payments from Medicare in 2004 [2,3]. Preventing avoidable readmissions has the potential to profoundly improve both the quality of life for patients and the financial wellbeing of health care systems.
Researchers involved in the expanding field of Transitions of Care are evaluating the effectiveness of various approaches to improve the discharge process. One classification scheme to categorize these interventions is to consider them as: pre-discharge interventions (patient education, discharge planning, medication reconciliation, scheduling a follow-up appointment); post-discharge interventions (follow-up phone call, communication with ambulatory provider, home visits); and bridging interventions (transition coaches, patient-centered discharge instructions, physician continuity between inpatient and outpatient settings) .
This topic presents an overview of the discharge process, determination of the appropriate next site of care, and review of interventions that have been developed to reduce the likelihood of unplanned readmissions and adverse events after discharge. Much of the discussion relates to structures for care within the United States; availability of services and types of facilities vary significantly across geographic areas.
APPROPRIATENESS FOR DISCHARGE — The medical necessity of continued hospitalization is primarily determined by the presence of an acute health condition of sufficient severity that ongoing diagnostic or therapeutic intervention, or careful monitoring, is required.
However, patients often appropriately remain in the hospital when these criteria are not met, due to the lack of a suitable alternative setting to provide necessary care or other social factors.
Premature discharge or discharge to an environment that is not capable of meeting the patient's medical needs may result in hospital readmission. In addition, early hospital discharge may not lead to overall cost-savings if it results in the need for more intense subsequent health care utilization, including emergency department or nursing facility visits, as indicated by one observational study comparing patients who received hospital care from a primary care physician with care by a hospitalist .
DETERMINING THE POST-DISCHARGE SITE OF CARE — When it has been determined that a patient is medically ready for discharge, the health care team must determine the most appropriate setting for ongoing care. Determinants of the appropriate site of care involve medical, functional, and social aspects of the patient's illness. The patient’s acute and chronic medical conditions, potential for rehabilitation, and decision-making capacity must be taken into account .
Input is needed from multiple sources to determine the most suitable discharge plan. Involved parties often will include the patient, family, case manager, nurse, physician, physical and occupational therapist, social worker, and insurer.
In order for the patient to be deemed safe and ready for discharge to home or to a non-acute environment (rehabilitative, transitional, or chronic care), a provider must take into account a number of factors beyond the medical determinants. These factors include:
●Patient cognitive status
●Patient activity level and functional status
●The nature of the patient's current home and suitability for the patient's conditions (eg, presence of stairways, cleanliness)
●Availability of family or companion support
●Ability to obtain medications and services
●Availability of transportation from hospital to home and for follow-up visits
●Availability of services in the community to assist the patient with ongoing care
Discharge home — Approximately three-quarters of hospitalized patients are able to return to their home environment following discharge . For discharge home, patients, with help from family or other caregivers if available, should be able to:
●Obtain and self-administer medications
●Perform self-care activities
●Eat an appropriate diet or otherwise manage nutritional needs
●Follow up with designated providers
Specific insurance benefits and availability of services in the community may also influence whether or not the patient may be safely discharged home. Home services, such as visiting nurses or infusion providers to administer intravenous infusions, may allow selected patients, who would otherwise need nonacute residential care, to manage their care needs at home.
Discharge to another care facility — If discharge to the outpatient setting is not appropriate, the team must then arrange transfer to another inpatient facility for ongoing care. Determining the most appropriate inpatient setting of care for ongoing treatment involves determining the patient's needs and matching needs with the capabilities of potential sites of care.
One model to help accomplish this involves assessing a set of parameters that describe generic clinical characteristics (medical and surgical issues, mental and emotional status, physical functioning, and environment) that are largely independent of the patient's specific diagnosis . Components of this model are shown in a table (table 1). These needs are then matched with the services offered at different types of facilities. (See 'Types of care facilities' below.)
Once it is decided that discharge to an alternate facility is necessary, referrals are made to facilities that are felt to be potentially appropriate, and the patient is screened for acceptance. The patient must consent to transfer to an accepting facility; if the patient or family declines, then negotiation ensues to find an acceptable discharge placement.
Types of care facilities — The severity of functional impairments and the need for assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) often determine whether a patient can be safely managed at home or requires care at a skilled nursing facility (SNF) or extended care facility (ECF). In making this determination, particular attention is paid to need for supervision in ADLs and safety awareness.
Medicare in the United States identifies three categories of health facilities:
●Acute care hospitals
●Exempt hospitals (inpatient rehabilitation hospitals [IRFs] and long-term acute care hospitals [LTACs])
●Nursing facilities (SNFs and ECFs)
Functional capabilities of each of these facilities are shown in a table (table 2) and outlined briefly here:
●Inpatient rehabilitation facilities – To meet certification criteria, IRFs must admit 75 percent of patients for 1 of 13 specified diagnoses such as stroke or major trauma. Patients must require multidisciplinary therapy (eg, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, orthotic or prosthetic services) and be able to participate in intensive treatment. Physician supervision is provided at least three days per week.
The patient's stay at the IRF may continue as long as there is continued progress and the ability to participate in and benefit from at least three hours of therapy per day.
●Long-term acute care hospitals – LTACs must maintain an average length of stay ≥25 days and patients must require daily monitoring and complex medical interventions. Patients may include those with complex wounds, chest tubes, ventilatory dependency, or multiorgan failure. LTACs are more likely to take complex medical patients than IRFs and are less widely geographically distributed than IRFs, although the number of LTACs in the United States more than doubled between 1997 and 2006 .
●Skilled nursing facilities – SNFs, transitional care units (TCUs), and subacute units provide similar services. TCUs are hospital-based and therefore have more ready access to hospital-based services.
To qualify for Medicare coverage in these facilities, patients must have a "qualifying event" that includes a three-night hospital stay and must require skilled nursing or rehabilitation for at least one hour daily five days a week. Medicare SNF benefits last 100 days without a new qualifying event and most SNFs do not accept high-cost patients for admission.
●Extended care facilities – ECFs provide long-term custodial care reimbursed through Medicaid. In order to qualify for Medicaid, a patient must have exhausted his or her assets, require assistance with a least three ADLs, and require skilled nursing supervision (medication management). Medicaid does not cover therapy services or skilled care, aside from the Medicare copayment.
●Home-based services – Availability of home-based services is highly variable. Multiple domains may be addressed by home-based care, including services provided by Medicare-certified home health agencies, private duty nursing services, hospice, infusion services, physician home visit programs, hospital-in-the-home, and telemedicine.
ELEMENTS OF THE DISCHARGE PROCESS
Discharge planning — Discharge planning is the development of an individualized discharge plan for the patient, prior to leaving the hospital, to ensure that patients are discharged at an appropriate time and with provision of adequate post-discharge services . Such planning is a mandatory part of hospital accreditation .
Discharge planning is a complex process that seeks to determine the appropriate level of services required by the patient and then match the patient to an appropriate site of care . This process ideally begins at the start of the hospitalization. The hospital case manager should be involved as soon as it is clear that the patient will require services at home or transfer to an alternative level of care.
The impact of discharge planning on outcomes appears to be limited. A 2010 systematic review identified greater patient satisfaction and small decreases in length of stay and readmission rates with discharge planning, while mortality rates were unchanged . A study that examined discharge planning for patients with heart failure measured chart documentation of discharge instructions and patient reports of the discharge planning they had received . No correlation was found between readmission rates and the chart-based measure, and only a small correlation was noted for lower readmission rates with highest versus lowest quintile on the patient-reported measure (22.4 versus 24.7 percent).
Medication reconciliation — Medication reconciliation, or medication review, is the process of verifying patient medication lists at a point-of-care transition, such as hospital discharge, to identify which medications have been added, discontinued, or changed relative to preadmission medication lists. Performing an accurate medication reconciliation is a critical element of a successful discharge transition. It also provides an opportunity for clinicians to ensure that patients understand what medications they are taking, how to take them, and why they are taking them. Most studies included in a 2012 systematic review showed that medication reconciliation was associated with a decrease in actual and potential adverse drug events . Whether or not medication review reduces post-discharge emergency department visits and readmissions is inconclusive; however, we typically conduct a medication reconciliation for each patient that is discharged from the hospital and review the medication list with the patient and/or caregiver.
The first step is having an accurate medication list at hospital discharge, which depends on the following:
●Having an accurate preadmission medication list.
●Having an accurate list of medications being taken by the patient at the time of discharge.
●Having knowledge of what medication changes were made during hospitalization and the reasons for the changes. As examples:
•Was a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) initiated for stress ulcer prophylaxis and therefore no longer required, or is ongoing PPI therapy necessary for treatment of an ulcer?
•If a different agent from the same class as one taken prior to admission was substituted during the hospitalization, was there a clinical indication for making that change or was this a therapeutic substitution made based on the hospital’s formulary preference? If a therapeutic substitution, then the discharge medication should revert to the medication that the patient was taking prior to hospitalization.
Once an accurate discharge medication list is generated, the clinician needs to communicate this information effectively to the patient or and/or caregivers. An observational study of patients aged 64 or older who were discharged home after hospitalization showed that the majority of patients did not understand the new dosing of medications they were taking or the reasons for medication changes . At discharge, nurses had reviewed all medications with the patients, but there was no formal process. This puts patients at increased risk for medication adverse events. In a systematic review of 26 studies, the medication reconciliation process consistently reduced medication discrepancies, as well as actual and potential adverse drug events . The most effective interventions targeted high-risk patients and had intensive pharmacy staff involvement.
Evidence was less robust that medication reconciliation reduces post-discharge emergency department visits and readmissions. A 2016 meta-analysis of seven randomized trials of 2843 hospitalized adults, followed for 30 days to one year, demonstrated that medication review did not reduce the risk of hospital readmissions . Medication reconciliation may not reduction readmission but likely has an important impact on reducing adverse drug events [17,18].
Discharge summary — The primary mode of communication between the hospital care team and aftercare providers is often the discharge summary, raising the importance of successful transmission of this document in a timely fashion. Unfortunately, the discharge summary reaches the primary care provider by the time of the first follow-up visit in only 12 to 34 percent of such visits, and even then often lacks key information . One large, single-center, retrospective study found that a delay in completion of the discharge summary was associated with higher rates of readmission . There was an increase in readmission if the discharge summary was not completed within three days after discharge (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% CI 1.04-1.13), and the risk continued to increase for every additional three days to complete the discharge summary.
Important elements in the discharge summary, as mandated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, are :
●The outcome of the hospitalization
●The disposition of the patient
●Provisions for follow-up care including appointments, statements of how care needs will be met, and plans for additional services (eg, hospice, home health assistance, skilled nursing)
This minimal content should be augmented by information critical to the aftercare providers. Utilizing a template for discharge summaries is helpful to ensure inclusion of relevant information . A suggested list of items that should appear in a discharge summary is shown in a table (table 3). An essential component is identifying those laboratory or other tests for which final results remain pending at the time of discharge [23,24].
Several initiatives involving computer-based innovations to improve the discharge summary process  or notification of pending tests at discharge  have been explored, but issues involving cost and end-user adoption need further consideration. An initiative involving audit and feedback of discharge summaries was successful in improving discharge summary completeness . The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) supported a pilot project to develop standardized data sets for transitions of care between acute and post-acute care sites and to measure the impact of those exchanges on health care service utilization .
Patient instructions — At the time of discharge, the patient should be provided with a document that includes language and literacy-appropriate instructions and patient education materials to help in successful transition from the hospital.
These documents should be brief, focused on critical information to the patient, and primarily directed at what the patient needs to understand to manage his or her condition after discharge.
One model for patient materials, developed by the National Patient Safety Foundation, is called Ask Me 3 :
●(1) What is my main problem? (ie, why was I in the hospital?)
●(2) What do I need to do? (ie, how do I manage at home, and what should I do if I run into problems?)
●(3) Why is it important for me to do this?
Discharge information, both written and verbal, should be reviewed with the patient/family caregivers with an emphasis on assessing and ensuring comprehension. In one interview study of patient perception and understanding of discharge instructions, among discharged patients aged >65 years who felt that they had good understanding of their discharge instructions, 40 percent were unable to accurately describe the reason for their hospitalization and 54 percent did not accurately recall instructions about their follow-up appointment .
Teach back is a technique by which the provider asks the patient or caregiver to explain the recently taught concept in the patient's own words . This technique permits the provider to identify and correct any misunderstandings in real time, with the intent of preventing adverse events related to inadequate comprehension of discharge information. While the teach back method has been validated in teaching a patient a new skill (eg, administering insulin or changing a dressing), teach back has not been studied specifically as a mechanism for reducing readmissions.
Discharge checklist — Checklists provide an effective mechanism for ensuring that discharge communications (the discharge summary and direct communication with both aftercare providers and patients/families) reliably incorporate all key elements. In 2005, a multi-institutional group created a discharge checklist containing a number of elements that are either required or optional during the preparation of the patient for discharge. This checklist has been endorsed by the Society of Hospital Medicine (table 4) . Its effectiveness has not been studied.
READMISSION — Decreasing the rate of hospital readmissions has been targeted as a high priority for United States health care reform . In 2010, the US government passed legislation (under the Affordable Care Act's Hospital Readmission and Reduction Program) penalizing hospitals for excess readmissions of Medicare patients, with financial penalties starting in 2012 . There was some concern that hospitals would avoid readmissions and penalties by admitting patients to a different status (observation status instead of inpatient status). However, data from 2007 to 2015 shows that while the period after the legislation was passed was associated with an abrupt decline in readmission, there was no similar associated increase in observation status utilization .
Avoidable versus unavoidable readmissions — Many hospitalizations are not avoidable. Readmissions may represent progression in the natural history of the patient's underlying disease, a separate problem that is unrelated to the initial admission, or the consequence of patient inability to follow through with a discharge plan (eg, the patient is unable to fill prescriptions). Some readmissions are likely preventable, although the proportion of readmissions that are preventable is uncertain . A systematic review of 34 studies, most based on retrospective chart review, found the median proportion of preventable readmissions was 27 percent but ranged between 5 and 79 percent . A subsequent observational study including 1000 general medicine patients readmitted within 30 days of discharge to 12 US academic medical centers found that approximately 27 percent were considered potentially avoidable. Avoidable readmission were those where there was >50 percent chance that their readmission could have been avoided . Factors most strongly associated with potentially preventable readmissions included emergency department decision-making regarding the readmission (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 9.13, 95% CI 5.23-15.95), failure to relay important information to outpatient providers (adjusted OR 4.19, 95% CI 2.17-8.09), discharge of patients too soon (adjusted OR 3.88, 95% CI 2.44-6.17), and lack of goals of care discussions among patients with serious illnesses (adjusted OR 3.84m 95% CI 1.39-10.64). One-half of potentially preventable readmissions were felt to be linked to interventions that could have been provided during the initial hospitalization. Additionally, one study using Medicare data for over 200,000 heart failure and pneumonia patients found initial admission rates contributed more to regional variation in readmission rates than other factors including case mix, discharge planning, hospital size, or number of primary care or specialist physicians in .
Readmissions and length of stay — With efforts to decrease length of stay for hospitalized patients over the past two decades, a reasonable concern has been raised that early discharge, if premature, could increase rates of readmission. However, available evidence, while limited to observational studies, does not suggest that earlier discharge is associated with readmission.
In an observational study from 129 Veterans Affairs acute care hospitals in the United States, reviewing over four million medical admissions from 1997 to 2010 for patients with one of five diagnoses (heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute myocardial infarction, community-acquired pneumonia, and gastrointestinal bleed), a decrease in 30-day readmission rates for all diagnoses (from 16.5 to 13.8 percent) occurred in conjunction with a decrease in length of stay (from 5.44 to 3.98 days) over the 14 years . Another observational study including over 15,000 Medicaid beneficiaries in four states with chronic conditions (eg, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease) found that longer length of stay with associated marginally increased risk (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.04) for readmission .
Factors that may affect readmission — Several factors that increase the likelihood of readmission may be modifiable, especially those that relate to clinician or system level issues. Such factors include:
●Inadequate post-discharge support
●Adverse drug events and other medication related issues
●Complications following procedures
●Nosocomial infections, pressure ulcers, and patient falls.
Therapeutic error — Medical errors are a major contributor to preventable readmission. Issues related to medication use are a common form of error. Adverse events, most commonly medication-related, have been estimated to occur in approximately 20 percent of patients following discharge [42,43]. Approximately two-thirds of such adverse events were determined to be either preventable or ameliorable.
Examples of these types of errors include:
●Patients sent home without prescriptions for necessary medications
●Patients receiving duplicate prescriptions for medications they have at home labeled with a different name (eg, generic and proprietary names)
●Inadequate monitoring and follow-up for drug side effects
However, preventing therapeutic error post-discharge is challenging. In a randomized trial involving two tertiary care hospitals, an intervention involving pharmacist medication reconciliation at hospital discharge, pharmacist counseling, low-literacy aids, and post-discharge follow-up phone calls did not prevent clinically important medication errors, which occurred in one-half of patients in both control and intervention groups . Almost a quarter of these errors were serious, while 13 percent led to readmission or emergency department visits.
Failed handoffs — Poor information transfer from hospital-based providers to primary care providers occurs commonly. This may contribute to multiple adverse consequences, including the need for readmission, temporary or permanent disability, or death [19,42,43]. Tests that are pending at discharge often fail to be communicated to providers responsible for their follow-up [23,24,45]. Representative studies include the following:
●In one study, 41 percent of discharged patients had a test pending at discharge. Almost 1 in 10 patients potentially required an intervention, but almost two-thirds of responsible aftercare providers were unaware that a test was outstanding .
●In another study, tests pending at the time of discharge were mentioned in discharge summaries only 25 percent of the time, and the list of pending studies was complete only 13 percent of the time .
●Tests ordered on the day of discharge represent 7 percent of tests performed during hospitalization but account for 47 percent of tests that are never reviewed; processes are needed to assure review of pending tests .
●Almost one-third of tests recommended by the hospital-based team for follow-up were never obtained by the aftercare provider; such tests were recommended for about one-quarter of discharged patients .
Direct communication from hospital provider to aftercare provider is uncommon, and there are no clear or widely accepted standards about this communication. A meta-analysis revealed that only 12 to 34 percent of discharge summaries had reached aftercare providers by the time of the first post-hospitalization appointment . Additionally, discharge documentation was often inaccurate and lacked important information such as noting additional workup indicated following discharge.
Absent or delayed follow-up — The optimal time interval between hospital discharge and the first follow-up visit to a primary care or subspecialty provider is unknown. Many factors will contribute to this decision including the severity of the disease process being followed, the perceived ability of the patient to provide adequate self-care, and psychosocial and logistical factors. Among Medicare beneficiaries requiring readmission within 30 days of discharge, only 50 percent had seen a clinician for a follow-up visit .
Several studies have evaluated the association between rates of readmission and scheduled outpatient follow-up post-hospitalization. However, these studies are often complicated by two issues: many patients are readmitted prior to their scheduled follow-up visit and many of these studies exclude patients without established outpatient providers. Additionally, none of these studies are randomized trials.
A number of studies affirm that patients who are scheduled or seen for post-hospital follow-up are less likely to be readmitted [43,48-50]. A study of Medicare patients hospitalized for heart failure in 225 hospitals found that rates of readmission within 30 days were highest for patients discharged from the quartile of hospitals with the lowest percentage of patients seen for follow-up within seven days of discharge . Another observational study in a single academic primary care practice found that, compared with patients in a faculty primary care practice, patients in resident primary care practices had lower rates of timely post-discharge follow-up and higher rates of readmission . However, the study also noted differences in patients followed by faculty practices and resident practices; patients followed by residents were less likely to follow up with their primary provider and were more likely to be younger, African American, and covered by Medicaid.
By contrast, other studies have not found that scheduled outpatient follow-up decreases readmissions. One retrospective study of nearly 5000 hospital discharges from the general medicine service at the Mayo Clinic hospitals found no difference in 30-day hospital admission, emergency department visits, or mortality comparing patients who had documentation of a scheduled follow-up appointment (median six days after discharge) with those who did not . This study, however, did not document whether those patients had actually attended the follow-up appointments or whether attending the follow-up visit resulted in changes in outcomes. In another study of 3661 patients aged ≥65 years, there was no protective effect on readmission for patients who had a follow-up office visit within seven days after discharge .
Higher-risk patients — Efforts to prevent readmissions can be targeted to patients known to be at a higher risk for readmission, including those at higher risk for adverse events post-discharge.
Risk factors for readmission — Several studies have suggested clinical and demographic parameters that may increase the risk of readmission. However, risk factors may not be the same for all readmissions. A cohort study at a single institution found that risk factors for early readmissions (within one week after discharge) were somewhat different than risk factors for later readmissions (between 8 and 30 days after discharge) .
Clinical factors include the following:
●Use of high-risk medication (antibiotics, glucocorticoids, anticoagulants, narcotics, antiepileptic medications, antipsychotics, antidepressants, and hypoglycemic agents) [43,55-59]
●Polypharmacy (five or more medications) 
●More than six chronic conditions 
●Specific clinical conditions (eg, advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart failure, stroke, cancer, weight loss, depression) [59,62-71]
Demographic and logistical factors include:
●Prior hospitalization, typically including unplanned hospitalizations within the last 6 to 12 months [72-75]
●Black race [59,76]
●Low health literacy 
●Reduced social network indicators like being alone most of the day with limited or no family or friend contact by phone or in person 
●Lower socioeconomic status [78-80]
Screening tools — Studies have found that clinical providers are not able to accurately predict which patients will require readmission . Screening for increased risk may help health care providers and organizations target resources to patients most likely to be rehospitalized. Several tools have now been developed and validated as methods for predicting readmission risk. However, there are several caveats to the use of screening tools:
●Given the variability of resources, patient demographics, and case mix, it will be necessary to adjust risk prediction models for local factors.
●There will be patients with very advanced disease or complicated social situations for whom no intervention will prevent readmission. Often efforts to decrease hospitalization are most effectively directed towards those patients with intermediate levels of risk for whom interventions might be successful .
●A guiding principle for using risk assessment is understanding how to implement interventions that target the risks identified.
No screening tool will be perfectly accurate. Efforts to develop prediction models for patients at high risk for readmission have yielded only fair discriminative ability [82,83]. In a 2006 systematic review of 26 models developed to predict readmission, only one model focused on the prediction of preventable readmissions , a concept that is itself fraught with issues regarding the definition of "preventability" .
Screening tools that have been developed to identify patients at risk of readmission are of two types: risk scores and risk identifiers. Examples of both include:
●LACE index – The LACE index is a commonly used tool to identify patients at risk of readmission (not specifically potentially preventable readmission)  and has similar discriminating ability to other models. This model incorporates the patient's Length of stay, the Acuity of the patients admission, the degree of Comorbid illness (as measured by the Charlson Comorbidity Index), and the number of times the patients has been to the Emergency department in the last six months. The advantage of this model is the limited number of factors it includes. A limiting feature of LACE, however, is that the length-of-stay element cannot be calculated accurately until the last day of the hospitalization, limiting its real-time use.
●HOSPITAL score – The HOSPITAL score is another model specifically developed to identify avoidable readmissions. Using a computerized validated algorithm, the HOSPITAL score (calculated by points assigned for Hemoglobin <12 g/dL, discharge from the Oncology service, or Sodium <135 mEq/L at discharge; having a Procedure during the hospital stay; and Index admission Type: nonelective, number of hospital Admissions in the previous year, and Length of stay ≥5 days) identifies patients at high risk of 30-day potentially avoidable readmissions . It was externally validated in a cohort study including over 117,000 patients discharged from nine hospitals across four different countries with moderately high discrimination.
●8Ps – Another tool for identifying patients at higher risk for readmission is the 8Ps Risk Assessment Tool, proposed by the Society of Hospital Medicine . The 8Ps Risk Assessment Tool identifies risk factors for adverse events post-hospital discharge. The eight risk factors are similar to those clinical, demographic, and logistical factors described above. The 8Ps are a risk identification system rather than a risk score, however, with the intent being that each risk identified will be matched with a risk-specific intervention.
Discharge against medical advice — Patients who are discharged against medical advice (AMA) are also higher-risk patients. A large retrospective cohort analysis performed at an urban academic medical center demonstrated that patients who were discharged AMA had a higher rate of readmission (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.69-2.01) and also a twofold increased risk of death, compared with those discharged by their physician . Discharge AMA was more likely to occur for admissions related to substance abuse, sickle cell disease, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection.
Patients who leave AMA should be informed regarding the disease-specific risks associated with premature discharge and the increased risk of death and readmission. Given the difficulty in engaging these patients with the medical community, efforts should be made to arrange appropriate post-hospitalization follow-up in the hope of facilitating their access to medical care after hospitalization.
INTERVENTIONS TO REDUCE READMISSION — Efforts to re-engineer the discharge process to assure a safe transition involve such issues as improved clinician communication, patient education, information technology systems, involvement of community-based providers, and arrangements for prompt follow-up . Such interventions have the potential to substantially improve patient care and reduce health care expenditures.
A 2011 systematic review of 43 studies, 16 of which were randomized trials, found that only 5 of the 16 randomized trials demonstrated significant decreases in readmission rates . Four of the five successful studies involved several simultaneous interventions, including patient-centered discharge instructions and a post-discharge telephone call. A 2012 systematic review found that many types of interventions (including medication reconciliation, structured electronic discharge summaries, discharge planning, and facilitated communication between hospital and community providers) impacted favorably on outcomes including readmission rates . However, due to heterogeneity in interventions, patient populations, and outcomes, it was not possible to identify which specific interventions had direct impact on measured outcomes. Successful interventions noted in this review overwhelmingly involved multifaceted interventions. A 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis of 42 randomized trials found that tested interventions prevented early readmissions . The more effective interventions were those that were complex, multifaceted, and supported patients’ capacity for self-care.
Successful interventions tend to be multifaceted, suggesting that reducing adverse events after discharge requires a multipronged approach. Many multidisciplinary initiatives, known as disease management programs, have targeted patients with specific chronic diseases to provide patient support, counseling, monitoring, and medication oversight through the continuum of care, including ambulatory, hospital, and hospital discharge settings. Disease management programs involving patients with heart failure are reviewed separately. (See "Strategies to reduce hospitalizations in patients with heart failure".)
Telephone call — Studies have looked at the impact of a telephone call from a member of the health care team following discharge on varying parameters of patient management. These calls have been initiated by various members of the care team, including:
●The discharging clinician
●A clinical pharmacist
●A clinician from the patient's primary care clinic
Such calls have been moderately effective at reducing emergency department visits  and improving follow-up with ambulatory providers  but demonstrated a trend towards reduced hospital readmissions in only one study . A 2006 systematic review was unable to define a clear benefit from this type of intervention due to significant heterogeneity in the quality and design of this literature . Interestingly, the optimal origin of the post-discharge telephone follow-up (hospital- or ambulatory-based) is also unknown. A systematic review of the literature examining the effect of a telephone follow-up initiated by the primary care provider showed no change in readmission rates, but the intervention did improve rates of post-discharge follow-up with the primary care practice .
Home visits — Home visits made by a number of different types of providers have been shown to reduce need for readmission. One trial illustrated that a single home visit by a nurse and pharmacist to patients discharged with a diagnosis of heart failure, with a goal of optimizing medication management, showed a trend towards an almost 50 percent reduced risk of unplanned readmission . Other studies looking at this question did not have as dramatic an effect on reduction in readmission [95,96].
Telemonitoring — Use of telemonitoring devices have also been studied as a means for reducing readmissions. As an example, using an integrated telephonic stethoscope in conjunction with follow-up nursing calls in patients with heart failure reduced emergency department visits in one small study and demonstrated a trend toward reduced readmissions and overall costs . Devices for remotely monitoring various physiologic variables, including blood pressure, heart rate, weight, and oxygen saturation, have been repeatedly studied, mostly among heart failure patients, and have demonstrated variable effectiveness in reducing need for readmission .
Medication management — Readmission may occur as a result of medication errors upon discharge. Medication management may prevent readmissions. One single-center randomized trial in 278 patients on high-risk medications or >three medications on discharge compared usual care with medication management by a pharmacist (face-to-face medication reconciliation, patient-specific medication care plan, discharge counseling, and post-discharge telephone calls) . Patients who received medication management by a pharmacist were less likely to be readmitted or seen in the emergency department within 30 days of discharge. As in Project Reengineered Discharge (RED), this trial employed a composite endpoint of readmissions and emergency department visits . Both trial results suggest that emergency department visit reduction was the larger driver of the primary outcome’s composite elements. Both trials, however, demonstrate the impact of clinical pharmacists and the importance of medication reconciliation in care transitions of hospitalized patients at discharge. (See 'Therapeutic error' above.)
Multiple interventions — Given the complexity of transitions of care associated with hospital discharge, several studies have evaluated the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions. Each of these studies focused on a specific setting or patient population. Examples include:
●Safety net hospitals – A randomized controlled trial in 749 patients at a large academic safety net hospital evaluated a multidisciplinary team effort (a nurse to assist with discharge planning/preparation, a pharmacist to call the patient post-discharge, scheduled follow-up appointments prior to discharge, medication reconciliation, and a low-literacy discharge instruction booklet) to reduce readmissions and emergency department visits . The rate of post-discharge hospital utilization was 31 percent for the intervention group compared with 44 percent for the control group. Patients in the intervention group were also more likely to follow up with their primary care provider.
However, a randomized trial in 700 patients ≥55 years old who spoke English, Spanish, or Chinese discharged from a safety-net hospital found no decrease in readmission or emergency department visits comparing usual care (review of discharge instruction, provision of 10-day supply of medication if needed, and social work assistance with discharge) with a nurse-led in-hospital discharge plan, low-literacy printed discharge instructions, and two follow-up telephone calls .
●Older patients – A study evaluated the Care Transitions Intervention (CTI) program in which older patients were paired with a discharge nurse transition coach. The Transition Coach facilitated self-management by the patient or a family caregiver instead of providing direct care . The coach encouraged the patient to maintain a personal health record, obtain timely follow-up appointments, provide self-care, and understand what to do if problems arise. The transition coach saw the patient before discharge and at home two to three days after discharge, followed by three telephone calls over the first 28 days post-discharge. This intervention reduced 30- and 90-day readmission rates (8.3 versus 11.9 percent and 16.7 versus 22.5 percent, respectively) with a cost savings of approximately $500/case.
Components of the CTI program were implemented in the “real-world” setting of a sample of fee-for-service, English-speaking Medicare patients being discharged home for specific cardiac or respiratory conditions from six hospitals in Rhode Island . Readmission rates within 30 days were lower for patients who received coaching compared with data from Medicare claims of an “external control group” of discharged patients with similar diagnoses who were not offered the intervention (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.88).
A randomized trial in six geriatric inpatient units in France evaluated the effect of a multimodal intervention (comprehensive medication review; self-management education focusing on medications, depression, and nutrition; and detailed communication around transition-of-care) on readmission and emergency department visits . Rates for these outcomes were lower at three months (a secondary outcome), but not at six months (the primary outcome), for the group assigned to the intervention. The intervention included implementation by a geriatrician dedicated to the project and thus might not be readily reproducible outside of the research project.
●High-risk patients – A randomized trial in 239 older adult patients with heart failure compared assigned advanced practice nurses with usual care . The designated transitional care partner met with the patient daily during the index visit and made a home visit the day after discharge and at least weekly thereafter over the first three months. At one year, there were 104 readmissions among intervention patients, compared with 162 readmissions for control patients, resulting in a cost savings of USD $4845 per patient.
Similarly, a prospective study of a nurse-led transitional care program for heart failure patients being discharged from one US hospital compared 30-day readmissions, length of stay, and 60-day direct costs with heart failure patients concurrently discharged from other hospitals within the same health care system . The program was associated with a 48 percent decrease in 30-day readmissions. However, it had little impact on direct costs to the health care system over 60 days and had a negative impact on hospital revenue under the existing Medicare reimbursement system.
However, a randomized trial in 1923 high-risk patients comparing usual discharge care (discharge instructions, prescriptions, counseling from the discharging physician, home care as needed, and recommendations for follow-up) with “virtual ward” care (care coordination plus direct care from an interprofessional team for several weeks after discharge) found no differences in readmission at one month, three months, six months, or one year after hospital discharge .
CLINICIAN RESOURCES — Several program initiatives are underway to investigate and facilitate interventions to promote improved hospital discharge processes. These programs and their websites include:
●The National Transitions of Care Coalition – This site offers tool and resources for both patients and providers to help improve the safety of health care transitions. Many of the tools are offered in languages other than English.
●The Institute for Health care Improvement – This site contains numerous resources about care transitions, as well as other quality-related components of health care in the United States.
●The Care Transitions Program – This site contains information about the Care Transitions Programs and also contains tools for implementing this program. Some features are translated into Spanish and Russian.
●Project BOOST (Society of Hospital Medicine) – A step-by-step guide for implementing Project BOOST (Better Outcomes through Optimizing Safe Transitions). Project BOOST is a mentored implementation program designed to improve transitions from hospital to home. In a pre-post study evaluating this initiative, hospital units that participated in Project BOOST had reduced rates of readmission, with a mean absolute reduction of 2 percent . Of note, readmission rates in comparison (control) units at the same institutions showed no change in readmission rates. The site also offers extensive information about quality improvement practices.
●Project RED (Re-Engineered Discharge) – Information on the key concepts and primary tools that are the foundation for the National Quality Forum's National Patient Safety Goal on safe discharge. Their toolkit is also available.
●Post-Acute Care Transitions (PACT)Toolkit (Society of Hospital Medicine) – This site offers resources to help optimize transitions between hospitals and skilled nursing facilities.
●The Transitional Care Model – This site contains information about the Transitional Care Model, which uses an advanced practice nurse to deliver and coordinate care across health care settings for geriatric patients.
INFORMATION FOR PATIENTS — UpToDate offers two types of patient education materials, "The Basics" and "Beyond the Basics." The Basics patient education pieces are written in plain language, at the 5th to 6th grade reading level, and they answer the four or five key questions a patient might have about a given condition. These articles are best for patients who want a general overview and who prefer short, easy-to-read materials. Beyond the Basics patient education pieces are longer, more sophisticated, and more detailed. These articles are written at the 10th to 12th grade reading level and are best for patients who want in-depth information and are comfortable with some medical jargon.
Here are the patient education articles that are relevant to this topic. We encourage you to print or e-mail these topics to your patients. (You can also locate patient education articles on a variety of subjects by searching on "patient info" and the keyword(s) of interest.)
●Basics topic (see "Patient education: Going home from the hospital (The Basics)")
●The decision whether or not a hospitalized patient is appropriate for discharge requires evaluation of multiple factors involving medical, as well as psychosocial, logistic, and economic considerations. Instruments for determining suitability for discharge that have been appropriately validated are not available. (See 'Appropriateness for discharge' above.)
●The need for ongoing hospitalization is determined by the clinical condition and need for ongoing diagnostic or therapeutic interventions. Multiple logistic factors beyond these clinical considerations will determine if the patient is safe to be discharged home or requires another setting. (See 'Determining the post-discharge site of care' above.)
●Discharge planning should involve the clinical staff and patient/family caregivers to develop a patient-centered plan. Critical elements in successful discharge transitions include performing an accurate reconciliation of medications, establishing timely follow-up, and developing an appropriately detailed discharge summary that is communicated to aftercare providers in a timely fashion. (See 'Elements of the discharge process' above.)
●Avoidable readmissions are difficult to define and may be related to therapeutic errors and failed handoffs. Identifying patients at increased risk for post-discharge adverse events and readmission may help target interventions to minimize this risk. Identifying systems issues which contribute to failed discharge transitions may shed light on opportunities to improve the safety of the discharge process for all patients. (See 'Readmission' above.)
●Several systems initiatives have shown promise in minimizing readmissions. These interventions include improved collaboration between the care team, patient, and aftercare provider prior to discharge; medication reconciliation; enhanced patient education and empowerment; home visits or telephone calls by clinical providers; remote monitoring; transitional care managers; and early post-discharge follow-up. Patient instructions should take into account the patient's cognitive status, health literacy, and other barriers to self-care. Multiple concurrent interventions may be more effective than single components. (See 'Interventions to reduce readmission' above.)
- http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hospital.htm (Accessed on January 26, 2016).
- Jencks SF, Williams MV, Coleman EA. Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:1418.
- Medicare & Medicaid Statistical Supplement. Baltimore: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2007. Available at: www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicareMedicaidStatSupp/downloads/2007Table5.1b.pdf (Accessed on September 29, 2011).
- Hansen LO, Young RS, Hinami K, et al. Interventions to reduce 30-day rehospitalization: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155:520.
- Kuo YF, Goodwin JS. Association of hospitalist care with medical utilization after discharge: evidence of cost shift from a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155:152.
- Kane RL. Finding the right level of posthospital care: "We didn't realize there was any other option for him". JAMA 2011; 305:284.
- Healthcare Costs and Utilization Project. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/factsandfigures/2007/exhibit1_4.jsp (Accessed on September 29, 2011).
- Siebens H. Applying the domain management model in treating patients with chronic diseases. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2001; 27:302.
- Kahn JM, Benson NM, Appleby D, et al. Long-term acute care hospital utilization after critical illness. JAMA 2010; 303:2253.
- Shepperd S, McClaran J, Phillips CO, et al. Discharge planning from hospital to home. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; :CD000313.
- The Joint Commission Comprehensive Accreditation Manual for Hospitals. Chicago. http://e-dition.jcrinc.com/Frame.aspx (Accessed on April 19, 2010).
- Meyer MH, Jekowsky E, Crane FG. Applying platform design to improve the integration of patient services across the continuum of care. Managing Service Quality 2007; 17:23.
- Jha AK, Orav EJ, Epstein AM. Public reporting of discharge planning and rates of readmissions. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:2637.
- Mueller SK, Sponsler KC, Kripalani S, Schnipper JL. Hospital-based medication reconciliation practices: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 2012; 172:1057.
- Ziaeian B, Araujo KL, Van Ness PH, Horwitz LI. Medication reconciliation accuracy and patient understanding of intended medication changes on hospital discharge. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27:1513.
- Christensen M, Lundh A. Medication review in hospitalised patients to reduce morbidity and mortality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; :CD008986.
- Gillespie U, Alassaad A, Henrohn D, et al. A comprehensive pharmacist intervention to reduce morbidity in patients 80 years or older: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169:894.
- Schnipper JL, Kirwin JL, Cotugno MC, et al. Role of pharmacist counseling in preventing adverse drug events after hospitalization. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:565.
- Kripalani S, LeFevre F, Phillips CO, et al. Deficits in communication and information transfer between hospital-based and primary care physicians: implications for patient safety and continuity of care. JAMA 2007; 297:831.
- Hoyer EH, Odonkor CA, Bhatia SN, et al. Association between days to complete inpatient discharge summaries with all-payer hospital readmissions in Maryland. J Hosp Med 2016; 11:393.
- The CMS Hospital Conditions of Participation and Interpretive Guidelines, McDonald IG (Ed), HC Pro Inc, 2004.
- O'Leary KJ, Liebovitz DM, Feinglass J, et al. Creating a better discharge summary: improvement in quality and timeliness using an electronic discharge summary. J Hosp Med 2009; 4:219.
- Roy CL, Poon EG, Karson AS, et al. Patient safety concerns arising from test results that return after hospital discharge. Ann Intern Med 2005; 143:121.
- Walz SE, Smith M, Cox E, et al. Pending laboratory tests and the hospital discharge summary in patients discharged to sub-acute care. J Gen Intern Med 2011; 26:393.
- Mourad M, Cucina R, Ramanathan R, Vidyarthi AR. Addressing the business of discharge: building a case for an electronic discharge summary. J Hosp Med 2011; 6:37.
- Dalal AK, Poon EG, Karson AS, et al. Lessons learned from implementation of a computerized application for pending tests at hospital discharge. J Hosp Med 2011; 6:16.
- Dinescu A, Fernandez H, Ross JS, Karani R. Audit and feedback: an intervention to improve discharge summary completion. J Hosp Med 2011; 6:28.
- S&I Framework. Longitudinal Coordination of Care. Available at: http://wiki.siframework.org/Longitudinal+Coordination+of+Care (Accessed on December 11, 2012).
- www.npsf.org/askme3 (Accessed on April 06, 2009).
- Horwitz LI, Moriarty JP, Chen C, et al. Quality of discharge practices and patient understanding at an academic medical center. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173:1715.
- Schillinger D, Piette J, Grumbach K, et al. Closing the loop: physician communication with diabetic patients who have low health literacy. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163:83.
- Halasyamani L, Kripalani S, Coleman E, et al. Transition of care for hospitalized elderly patients--development of a discharge checklist for hospitalists. J Hosp Med 2006; 1:354.
- www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/jumpstarting_the_economy.pdf (Accessed on April 06, 2010).
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Readmissions Reduction Program. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/Readmissions-Reduction-Program.html (Accessed on December 11, 2012).
- Zuckerman RB, Sheingold SH, Orav EJ, et al. Readmissions, Observation, and the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. N Engl J Med 2016; 374:1543.
- Benbassat J, Taragin M. Hospital readmissions as a measure of quality of health care: advantages and limitations. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160:1074.
- van Walraven C, Bennett C, Jennings A, et al. Proportion of hospital readmissions deemed avoidable: a systematic review. CMAJ 2011; 183:E391.
- Auerbach AD, Kripalani S, Vasilevskis EE, et al. Preventability and Causes of Readmissions in a National Cohort of General Medicine Patients. JAMA Intern Med 2016; 176:484.
- Epstein AM, Jha AK, Orav EJ. The relationship between hospital admission rates and rehospitalizations. N Engl J Med 2011; 365:2287.
- Kaboli PJ, Go JT, Hockenberry J, et al. Associations between reduced hospital length of stay and 30-day readmission rate and mortality: 14-year experience in 129 Veterans Affairs hospitals. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157:837.
- Chopra I, Wilkins TL, Sambamoorthi U. Hospital length of stay and all-cause 30-day readmissions among high-risk Medicaid beneficiaries. J Hosp Med 2016; 11:283.
- Forster AJ, Murff HJ, Peterson JF, et al. The incidence and severity of adverse events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138:161.
- Forster AJ, Clark HD, Menard A, et al. Adverse events among medical patients after discharge from hospital. CMAJ 2004; 170:345.
- Kripalani S, Roumie CL, Dalal AK, et al. Effect of a pharmacist intervention on clinically important medication errors after hospital discharge: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157:1.
- Were MC, Li X, Kesterson J, et al. Adequacy of hospital discharge summaries in documenting tests with pending results and outpatient follow-up providers. J Gen Intern Med 2009; 24:1002.
- Ong MS, Magrabi F, Jones G, Coiera E. Last Orders: Follow-up of Tests Ordered on the Day of Hospital Discharge. Arch Intern Med 2012; 172:1347.
- Moore C, McGinn T, Halm E. Tying up loose ends: discharging patients with unresolved medical issues. Arch Intern Med 2007; 167:1305.
- Hernandez AF, Greiner MA, Fonarow GC, et al. Relationship between early physician follow-up and 30-day readmission among Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for heart failure. JAMA 2010; 303:1716.
- Misky GJ, Wald HL, Coleman EA. Post-hospitalization transitions: Examining the effects of timing of primary care provider follow-up. J Hosp Med 2010; 5:392.
- Sharma G, Kuo YF, Freeman JL, et al. Outpatient follow-up visit and 30-day emergency department visit and readmission in patients hospitalized for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170:1664.
- Doctoroff L, McNally D, Vanka A, et al. Inpatient-outpatient transitions for patients with resident primary care physicians: access and readmission. Am J Med 2014; 127:886.e15.
- Grafft CA, McDonald FS, Ruud KL, et al. Effect of hospital follow-up appointment on clinical event outcomes and mortality. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170:955.
- Field TS, Ogarek J, Garber L, et al. Association of early post-discharge follow-up by a primary care physician and 30-day rehospitalization among older adults. J Gen Intern Med 2015; 30:565.
- Graham KL, Wilker EH, Howell MD, et al. Differences between early and late readmissions among patients: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162:741.
- Forster AJ, Murff HJ, Peterson JF, et al. Adverse drug events occurring following hospital discharge. J Gen Intern Med 2005; 20:317.
- Budnitz DS, Shehab N, Kegler SR, Richards CL. Medication use leading to emergency department visits for adverse drug events in older adults. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147:755.
- Budnitz DS, Pollock DA, Weidenbach KN, et al. National surveillance of emergency department visits for outpatient adverse drug events. JAMA 2006; 296:1858.
- van Walraven C, Forster AJ. Anticoagulation control in the peri-hospitalization period. J Gen Intern Med 2007; 22:727.
- Allaudeen N, Vidyarthi A, Maselli J, Auerbach A. Redefining readmission risk factors for general medicine patients. J Hosp Med 2011; 6:54.
- Campbell SE, Seymour DG, Primrose WR, ACMEPLUS Project. A systematic literature review of factors affecting outcome in older medical patients admitted to hospital. Age Ageing 2004; 33:110.
- Medicare Hospital Quality Chartbook 2012 www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/HospitalQualityInits/Downloads/MedicareHospitalQualityChartbook2012.pdf (Accessed on March 25, 2013).
- Kim CS, Flanders SA. In the Clinic. Transitions of care. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158:ITC3.
- Büla CJ, Wietlisbach V, Burnand B, Yersin B. Depressive symptoms as a predictor of 6-month outcomes and services utilization in elderly medical inpatients. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161:2609.
- Kartha A, Anthony D, Manasseh CS, et al. Depression is a risk factor for rehospitalization in medical inpatients. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry 2007; 9:256.
- Strunin L, Stone M, Jack B. Understanding rehospitalization risk: can hospital discharge be modified to reduce recurrent hospitalization? J Hosp Med 2007; 2:297.
- Ng TP, Niti M, Tan WC, et al. Depressive symptoms and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: effect on mortality, hospital readmission, symptom burden, functional status, and quality of life. Arch Intern Med 2007; 167:60.
- Phillips CO, Wright SM, Kern DE, et al. Comprehensive discharge planning with postdischarge support for older patients with congestive heart failure: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2004; 291:1358.
- Gwadry-Sridhar FH, Flintoft V, Lee DS, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing readmission rates and mortality rates in patients with heart failure. Arch Intern Med 2004; 164:2315.
- Coleman EA, Wagner EH, Grothaus LC, et al. Predicting hospitalization and functional decline in older health plan enrollees: are administrative data as accurate as self-report? J Am Geriatr Soc 1998; 46:419.
- Mudge AM, Kasper K, Clair A, et al. Recurrent readmissions in medical patients: a prospective study. J Hosp Med 2011; 6:61.
- Pederson JL, Warkentin LM, Majumdar SR, McAlister FA. Depressive symptoms are associated with higher rates of readmission or mortality after medical hospitalization: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hosp Med 2016; 11:373.
- Billings J, Dixon J, Mijanovich T, Wennberg D. Case finding for patients at risk of readmission to hospital: development of algorithm to identify high risk patients. BMJ 2006; 333:327.
- Comette P, D'Hoore W, Malhomme B, et al. Differential risk factors for early and later hospital readmission of older patients. Aging Clin Exp Res 2005; 17:322.
- Smith DM, Giobbie-Hurder A, Weinberger M, et al. Predicting non-elective hospital readmissions: a multi-site study. Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Primary Care and Readmissions. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53:1113.
- Rodríguez-Artalejo F, Guallar-Castillón P, Herrera MC, et al. Social network as a predictor of hospital readmission and mortality among older patients with heart failure. J Card Fail 2006; 12:621.
- Joynt KE, Orav EJ, Jha AK. Thirty-day readmission rates for Medicare beneficiaries by race and site of care. JAMA 2011; 305:675.
- Baker DW, Gazmararian JA, Williams MV, et al. Functional health literacy and the risk of hospital admission among Medicare managed care enrollees. Am J Public Health 2002; 92:1278.
- Kangovi S, Barg FK, Carter T, et al. Challenges faced by patients with low socioeconomic status during the post-hospital transition. J Gen Intern Med 2014; 29:283.
- Foraker RE, Rose KM, Suchindran CM, et al. Socioeconomic status, Medicaid coverage, clinical comorbidity, and rehospitalization or death after an incident heart failure hospitalization: Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities cohort (1987 to 2004). Circ Heart Fail 2011; 4:308.
- Kind AJ, Jencks S, Brock J, et al. Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and 30-day rehospitalization: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2014; 161:765.
- Lindquist LA, Baker DW. Understanding preventable hospital readmissions: masqueraders, markers, and true causal factors. J Hosp Med 2011; 6:51.
- Hasan O, Meltzer DO, Shaykevich SA, et al. Hospital readmission in general medicine patients: a prediction model. J Gen Intern Med 2010; 25:211.
- Kansagara D, Englander H, Salanitro A, et al. Risk prediction models for hospital readmission: a systematic review. JAMA 2011; 306:1688.
- Halfon P, Eggli Y, Prêtre-Rohrbach I, et al. Validation of the potentially avoidable hospital readmission rate as a routine indicator of the quality of hospital care. Med Care 2006; 44:972.
- van Walraven C, Dhalla IA, Bell C, et al. Derivation and validation of an index to predict early death or unplanned readmission after discharge from hospital to the community. CMAJ 2010; 182:551.
- Donzé JD, Williams MV, Robinson EJ, et al. International Validity of the HOSPITAL Score to Predict 30-Day Potentially Avoidable Hospital Readmissions. JAMA Intern Med 2016; 176:496.
- Southern WN, Nahvi S, Arnsten JH. Increased risk of mortality and readmission among patients discharged against medical advice. Am J Med 2012; 125:594.
- Hesselink G, Schoonhoven L, Barach P, et al. Improving patient handovers from hospital to primary care: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157:417.
- Leppin AL, Gionfriddo MR, Kessler M, et al. Preventing 30-day hospital readmissions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174:1095.
- Dudas V, Bookwalter T, Kerr KM, Pantilat SZ. The impact of follow-up telephone calls to patients after hospitalization. Am J Med 2001; 111:26S.
- Balaban RB, Weissman JS, Samuel PA, Woolhandler S. Redefining and redesigning hospital discharge to enhance patient care: a randomized controlled study. J Gen Intern Med 2008; 23:1228.
- Mistiaen P, Poot E. Telephone follow-up, initiated by a hospital-based health professional, for postdischarge problems in patients discharged from hospital to home. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; :CD004510.
- Crocker JB, Crocker JT, Greenwald JL. Telephone follow-up as a primary care intervention for postdischarge outcomes improvement: a systematic review. Am J Med 2012; 125:915.
- Stewart S, Pearson S, Horowitz JD. Effects of a home-based intervention among patients with congestive heart failure discharged from acute hospital care. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158:1067.
- Rogers J, Perlic M, Madigan EA. The effect of frontloading visits on patient outcomes. Home Healthc Nurse 2007; 25:103.
- Crossen-Sills J, Toomey I, Doherty M. Strategies to reduce unplanned hospitalizations of home healthcare patients: a STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH. Home Healthc Nurse 2006; 24:368.
- Jerant AF, Azari R, Nesbitt TS. Reducing the cost of frequent hospital admissions for congestive heart failure: a randomized trial of a home telecare intervention. Med Care 2001; 39:1234.
- Chaudhry SI, Phillips CO, Stewart SS, et al. Telemonitoring for patients with chronic heart failure: a systematic review. J Card Fail 2007; 13:56.
- Phatak A, Prusi R, Ward B, et al. Impact of pharmacist involvement in the transitional care of high-risk patients through medication reconciliation, medication education, and postdischarge call-backs (IPITCH Study). J Hosp Med 2016; 11:39.
- Jack BW, Chetty VK, Anthony D, et al. A reengineered hospital discharge program to decrease rehospitalization: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150:178.
- Goldman LE, Sarkar U, Kessell E, et al. Support from hospital to home for elders: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2014; 161:472.
- Coleman EA, Parry C, Chalmers S, Min SJ. The care transitions intervention: results of a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:1822.
- Voss R, Gardner R, Baier R, et al. The care transitions intervention: translating from efficacy to effectiveness. Arch Intern Med 2011; 171:1232.
- Legrain S, Tubach F, Bonnet-Zamponi D, et al. A new multimodal geriatric discharge-planning intervention to prevent emergency visits and rehospitalizations of older adults: the optimization of medication in AGEd multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 2011; 59:2017.
- Naylor MD, Brooten DA, Campbell RL, et al. Transitional care of older adults hospitalized with heart failure: a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004; 52:675.
- Stauffer BD, Fullerton C, Fleming N, et al. Effectiveness and cost of a transitional care program for heart failure: a prospective study with concurrent controls. Arch Intern Med 2011; 171:1238.
- Dhalla IA, O'Brien T, Morra D, et al. Effect of a postdischarge virtual ward on readmission or death for high-risk patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014; 312:1305.
- Hansen LO, Greenwald JL, Budnitz T, et al. Project BOOST: effectiveness of a multihospital effort to reduce rehospitalization. J Hosp Med 2013; 8:421.