Association Between Discharge Destination and Excess Length of Stay in Heart Failure-Related Admissions: A Retrospective Single-Centre Study

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Deepti Singh, Kellas Cameron
{"title":"Association Between Discharge Destination and Excess Length of Stay in Heart Failure-Related Admissions: A Retrospective Single-Centre Study","authors":"Deepti Singh,&nbsp;Kellas Cameron","doi":"10.1111/jep.70563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Rationale</h3>\n \n <p>Hospital readmissions and excess inpatient length of stay remain important clinical and organisational concerns in cardiovascular care. Although discharge destination has been linked to postacute utilisation and spending, less is known about whether discharge destination is associated with inpatient days exceeding diagnosis-related expected stay.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims and Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>This study examined whether discharge destination was associated with excess length of stay above diagnosis-related expected stay among heart failure-related admissions and whether those additional inpatient days were associated with lower 30-day readmission.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a retrospective observational study of administrative admissions recorded between August 2016 and October 2017 at a large academic urban teaching hospital. The primary outcome was excess length of stay, defined as max (length of stay—CMS geometric mean length of stay, 0). The primary explanatory variable was discharge destination, grouped as home, skilled nursing, other facility or discontinued care. Multivariable regression models estimated adjusted associations with excess length of stay, and a secondary generalised estimating equation model assessed 30-day readmission.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The final analytic sample included 1076 admissions from 743 unique patients. Mean excess length of stay was 2.47 days, and 24.3% of admissions were followed by a 30-day readmission. In adjusted models, discharge to skilled nursing was associated with 1.46 additional excess days versus home discharge (95% CI: 0.68–2.23; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), while discharge to other facility settings was associated with 1.67 additional excess days (95% CI: 0.29–3.04; <i>p</i> = 0.017). Findings were directionally similar in sensitivity analyses. Excess stay was not associated with lower 30-day readmission, and nonhome discharge categories were not associated with lower readmission odds.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>In this single-site observational sample, nonhome discharge, especially skilled nursing placement, was associated with longer stays above DRG-benchmarked expectations without lower short-term readmission. These findings may reflect greater discharge complexity and local postacute transition constraints, although the study did not directly measure the mechanisms underlying prolonged hospitalisation.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"32 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70563","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale

Hospital readmissions and excess inpatient length of stay remain important clinical and organisational concerns in cardiovascular care. Although discharge destination has been linked to postacute utilisation and spending, less is known about whether discharge destination is associated with inpatient days exceeding diagnosis-related expected stay.

Aims and Objectives

This study examined whether discharge destination was associated with excess length of stay above diagnosis-related expected stay among heart failure-related admissions and whether those additional inpatient days were associated with lower 30-day readmission.

Method

We conducted a retrospective observational study of administrative admissions recorded between August 2016 and October 2017 at a large academic urban teaching hospital. The primary outcome was excess length of stay, defined as max (length of stay—CMS geometric mean length of stay, 0). The primary explanatory variable was discharge destination, grouped as home, skilled nursing, other facility or discontinued care. Multivariable regression models estimated adjusted associations with excess length of stay, and a secondary generalised estimating equation model assessed 30-day readmission.

Results

The final analytic sample included 1076 admissions from 743 unique patients. Mean excess length of stay was 2.47 days, and 24.3% of admissions were followed by a 30-day readmission. In adjusted models, discharge to skilled nursing was associated with 1.46 additional excess days versus home discharge (95% CI: 0.68–2.23; p < 0.001), while discharge to other facility settings was associated with 1.67 additional excess days (95% CI: 0.29–3.04; p = 0.017). Findings were directionally similar in sensitivity analyses. Excess stay was not associated with lower 30-day readmission, and nonhome discharge categories were not associated with lower readmission odds.

Conclusion

In this single-site observational sample, nonhome discharge, especially skilled nursing placement, was associated with longer stays above DRG-benchmarked expectations without lower short-term readmission. These findings may reflect greater discharge complexity and local postacute transition constraints, although the study did not directly measure the mechanisms underlying prolonged hospitalisation.

心力衰竭相关住院患者出院目的地与住院时间的关系:一项回顾性单中心研究
理由:医院再入院和住院时间过长仍然是心血管护理中重要的临床和组织问题。尽管出院目的地与急性期后的使用和支出有关,但出院目的地是否与住院天数超过诊断相关的预期住院时间有关尚不清楚。目的和目的本研究考察了在心力衰竭相关入院患者中,出院目的地是否与超过诊断相关预期住院时间有关,以及这些额外住院天数是否与较低的30天再入院率有关。方法对2016年8月至2017年10月某大型学术型城市教学医院行政住院记录进行回顾性观察研究。主要终点是超额停留时间,定义为max(停留时间长度cms几何平均停留时间,0)。主要解释变量是出院目的地,分为家庭、熟练护理、其他设施或停止护理。多变量回归模型估计了调整后的住院时间与额外住院时间的关联,二级广义估计方程模型评估了30天的再入院。结果最终的分析样本包括来自743例特殊患者的1076例入院。平均超额住院时间为2.47天,24.3%的住院患者在入院后再次住院30天。在调整后的模型中,与在家出院相比,转到熟练护理部门的患者多出1.46天(95% CI: 0.68-2.23; p < 0.001),而转到其他机构的患者多出1.67天(95% CI: 0.29-3.04; p = 0.017)。敏感性分析的结果方向相似。住院时间过长与较低的30天再入院率无关,非家庭出院类别与较低的再入院率无关。结论:在这个单点观察样本中,非家庭出院,特别是熟练护理安置,与超过drg基准预期的住院时间更长有关,而短期再入院率较低。这些发现可能反映了更大的出院复杂性和局部急性后过渡限制,尽管该研究没有直接测量长期住院的机制。
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
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书