Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Preventability assessment of the included studies (N = 48)

From: How do studies assess the preventability of readmissions? A systematic review with narrative synthesis

Author Planned read-missions excluded?a No. read-missions reviewedb No. of preventable unplanned readmissions % preventable unplanned readmissionsc Scoring of preventability A priori preventable causes determined Training of reviewers Reviewersd Double check of preventability Additional sources used for the review
Agrawal yes 30 11 36,7 categorical yes no individual no
Auerbach yes 1000 269 26,9 scale yes yes duo all cases Interviewf
Balla yes 271 90 33,2 binary no NR duo all cases Interviewe
Bianco no 229 100 43,7 binary yes yes duo all cases Interviewe
Burke yes 335 78 23,3 categorical yes yes duo all cases Interviewe
Cakir NR 85 4 4,7 categorical yes NR individual NR
Clarke yes 74 18,9 25,5 categorical yes NR duo or team all cases
Dawes yes 258 55 21,3 categorical yes yes duo + team All cases
Epstein no 50 1 2,0 categorical yes NR duo + team All cases
Feigenbaum no 537 250 46,6 categorical yes yes duo all cases Interviewf
Fluitman yes 50 26 52,0 binary yes NR duo all cases
Frankl yes 318 28 8,8 categorical yes NR individual + team partially
Gautam yes 109 16 14,7 binary yes NR individual + team NR Interviewf
Glass NR 96 25 26,0 binary no NR NR NR
Greenberg yes 97 22 22,7 categorical yes NR duo NR
Hain no 200 40 20,0 scale yes yes panel all cases
Halfon yes 429 40 9,3 NA yes NR duo partially
Harhay yes 201 19 9,5 binary yes yes duo all cases  
Jiminez-Puente no 185 44 23,9 binary yes NR duo all cases
Jonas no 248 15 6,0 binary yes NR individual + panel partially
Kelly yes 32 22 68,8 binary yes NR duo all cases  
Koekkoek no 298 45 15,1 categorical no yes individual NR
Maurer yes 32 3 9,4 binary yes NR duo partially
Meisenberg yes 72 22 30,6 binary yes NR duo all cases
Miles yes 437 24 5,5 categorical no NR duo partially
Mittal yes 35 15 42,9 binary no NR duo all cases  
Nahab no 174 92 52,9 NA yes NR duo all cases
Nijhawan yes 130 62 47,7 NA yes NR duo + panel all cases
Njeim NR 161 51 31,7 binary no yes individual no
Oddone NR 514 183 34,2* categorical no yes duo partially
Pace yes 140 19 13,9 categorical yes NR duo all cases
Ryan yes 40 NR 26,7 categorical no yes team all cases
Saunders yes 282 51 18,1 binary yes NR team all cases
Shah no 407 149 36,6 NA yes NR duo all cases
Shalchi NR 63 45 71,4 binary no NR team all cases
Shimizu no 153 50 32,7 binary yes NR panel all cases Interviewe
Stein yes 213 64 29,5 binary no NR individual NA Interviewf
Sutherland yes 47 11 23,4 NA no NR individual NR Interviewe
Tejedor-Sojo no 147 62 42,2 categorical yes yes team NR
Toomey yes 305 90 29,5 scale no yes team all cases Interviewf
Vachon yes 98 14 14,3 binary yes NR individual NR
Van Walraven yes 317 70 22,1 scale no yes duo partially Interviewe
Vinson NR 66 10 15,2 categorical no NR duo NR Interviewe
Wallace yes 204 41 20,1 binary yes yes duo all cases
Wasfy NR 893 380 42,6 categorical yes yes duo all cases
Weinberg yes 50 3 6,0 binary yes NR panel all cases
Williams yes 133 78 58,6 binary no NR individual no Interviewf
Yam yes 603 246 40,8 binary no no Duo + panel all cases
  1. aPlanned readmissions were considered excluded when the planned readmissions were excluded before preventability was assessed.
  2. bNumber of reviewed cases is based on the number of included patients for whom preventability of a readmission was assessed, based on the number of included readmissions for which preventability was assessed, or based on the number of preventability assessments performed.
  3. cIn case a study calculated the percentage of preventable readmissions for multiple time durations (time between index and readmission) the time duration of 30 days (or closest to 30 days) was chosen to increase the comparability of the results with the other studies. *Based on phase 2 of the study
  4. dindividual = a single reviewer independently assessed the preventability of the readmission without a double check by other reviewers or a consensus meeting; individual + team/panel = a single reviewer independently assessed the preventability of the readmission, but a double check is performed on a selection of cases; duo = both reviewers assessed the preventability of the readmissions and came to a mutual agreement; duo + team/panel = both reviewers assed the preventability added by a team or panel which could advise the two reviewers in case a mutual agreement on the preventability was not achieved; team or panel: cases are directly reviewed by a team of 3 to 4 persons.
  5. eInterview (or questionnaire or survey) was conducted with the patient only;
  6. fInterview (or questionnaire or survey) was conducted with the patient and the care provider (general practitioner of physician).