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

Kneepkens, Eva-Linda; Brouwers, Corline; Singotani, Richelle Glory; de Bruijne, Martine C.; Karapinar-Çarkit, Fatma

doi:10.1186/s12874-019-0766-0

BMC Medical Research Methodology

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 reviewed^b	No. of preventable unplanned readmissions	% preventable unplanned readmissions^c	Scoring of preventability	A priori preventable causes determined	Training of reviewers	Reviewers^d	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	Interview^f
Balla	yes	271	90	33,2	binary	no	NR	duo	all cases	Interview^e
Bianco	no	229	100	43,7	binary	yes	yes	duo	all cases	Interview^e
Burke	yes	335	78	23,3	categorical	yes	yes	duo	all cases	Interview^e
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	Interview^f
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	Interview^f
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	Interview^e
Stein	yes	213	64	29,5	binary	no	NR	individual	NA	Interview^f
Sutherland	yes	47	11	23,4	NA	no	NR	individual	NR	Interview^e
Tejedor-Sojo	no	147	62	42,2	categorical	yes	yes	team	NR	–
Toomey	yes	305	90	29,5	scale	no	yes	team	all cases	Interview^f
Vachon	yes	98	14	14,3	binary	yes	NR	individual	NR	–
Van Walraven	yes	317	70	22,1	scale	no	yes	duo	partially	Interview^e
Vinson	NR	66	10	15,2	categorical	no	NR	duo	NR	Interview^e
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	Interview^f
Yam	yes	603	246	40,8	binary	no	no	Duo + panel	all cases	–

^aPlanned readmissions were considered excluded when the planned readmissions were excluded before preventability was assessed.
^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.
^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
^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.
^eInterview (or questionnaire or survey) was conducted with the patient only;
^fInterview (or questionnaire or survey) was conducted with the patient and the care provider (general practitioner of physician).

Back to article page

ISSN: 1471-2288

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com