Hospital Readmission Rates for Patients Receiving In-Person vs. Telemedicine Discharge Follow-Up Care.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Areeba Zain, Derek Baughman, Abdul Waheed
{"title":"Hospital Readmission Rates for Patients Receiving In-Person vs. Telemedicine Discharge Follow-Up Care.","authors":"Areeba Zain, Derek Baughman, Abdul Waheed","doi":"10.3122/jabfm.2023.230213R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Unplanned readmissions can be avoided by standardizing and improving the coordination of care after discharge. Telemedicine has been increasingly utilized; however, the quality of this care has not been well studied. Standardized measures can provide an objective comparison of care quality. The purpose of our study was to compare quality performance transitions of care management in the office vs telemedicine.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Epic SlicerDicer tool was used to compare the percentage of encounters that were completed via telemedicine (video visits); or via in-person for comparison, Chi-squared tests were used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 13,891 patients met the inclusion criteria during the study time frame. There were 12,846 patients in the office and 1,048 in the telemedicine cohort. The office readmission rate was 11.9% with 1,533 patients out of 12,846 compared with telemedicine with the rate of readmission at 12.1% with 126 patients out of 1,045 patients. The P-value for the Chi-squared test between the prepandemic and study time frame was 0.15 and 0.95, respectively. Demographic comparability was seen.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our study found a comparable readmission rate between patients seen via in-office and telemedicine for Transitions of Care Management (TCM) encounters. The findings of this study support the growing body of evidence that telemedicine augments quality performance while reducing cost and improving access without negatively impacting HEDIS performance in health care systems.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Telemedicine poses little threat of negatively impacting HEDIS performance and might be as effective as posthospitalization traditional office care transitions of care management.</p>","PeriodicalId":50018,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine","volume":"37 2","pages":"166-171"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2023.230213R1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Unplanned readmissions can be avoided by standardizing and improving the coordination of care after discharge. Telemedicine has been increasingly utilized; however, the quality of this care has not been well studied. Standardized measures can provide an objective comparison of care quality. The purpose of our study was to compare quality performance transitions of care management in the office vs telemedicine.

Methods: The Epic SlicerDicer tool was used to compare the percentage of encounters that were completed via telemedicine (video visits); or via in-person for comparison, Chi-squared tests were used.

Results: A total of 13,891 patients met the inclusion criteria during the study time frame. There were 12,846 patients in the office and 1,048 in the telemedicine cohort. The office readmission rate was 11.9% with 1,533 patients out of 12,846 compared with telemedicine with the rate of readmission at 12.1% with 126 patients out of 1,045 patients. The P-value for the Chi-squared test between the prepandemic and study time frame was 0.15 and 0.95, respectively. Demographic comparability was seen.

Discussion: Our study found a comparable readmission rate between patients seen via in-office and telemedicine for Transitions of Care Management (TCM) encounters. The findings of this study support the growing body of evidence that telemedicine augments quality performance while reducing cost and improving access without negatively impacting HEDIS performance in health care systems.

Conclusion: Telemedicine poses little threat of negatively impacting HEDIS performance and might be as effective as posthospitalization traditional office care transitions of care management.

接受亲诊与远程医疗出院随访护理的患者再入院率。
导言:通过规范和改善出院后的护理协调,可以避免意外再入院。远程医疗的应用越来越广泛,但对其质量的研究还不够深入。标准化的测量方法可以对护理质量进行客观的比较。我们研究的目的是比较诊室护理管理与远程医疗的质量绩效转换:方法:使用 Epic SlicerDicer 工具比较通过远程医疗(视频就诊)完成的就诊比例;或通过现场就诊完成的就诊比例,并使用卡方检验进行比较:研究期间共有 13,891 名患者符合纳入标准。其中,诊室患者有 12846 人,远程医疗患者有 1048 人。在 12846 名患者中,诊室再入院率为 11.9%,有 1533 名患者;而在 1045 名患者中,远程医疗再入院率为 12.1%,有 126 名患者。流行前和研究时间段之间的卡方检验 P 值分别为 0.15 和 0.95。人口统计学具有可比性:讨论:我们的研究发现,通过诊室和远程医疗进行护理管理过渡(TCM)的患者再入院率相当。这项研究的结果支持了越来越多的证据,即远程医疗在提高质量的同时降低了成本,改善了医疗服务的可及性,而不会对医疗系统的 HEDIS 表现产生负面影响:结论:远程医疗几乎不会对 HEDIS 业绩造成负面影响,而且可能与住院后传统的诊室护理过渡护理管理一样有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
6.90%
发文量
168
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Published since 1988, the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine ( JABFM ) is the official peer-reviewed journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM). Believing that the public and scientific communities are best served by open access to information, JABFM makes its articles available free of charge and without registration at www.jabfm.org. JABFM is indexed by Medline, Index Medicus, and other services.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信