Mark S. Brittan, MD, MPH

As hospitalized children become more medically complex, hospital-to-home care transitions will become increasingly challenging. During a quality improvement (QI) initiative, we developed an electronic tool to improve the quality of our hospital discharge process.

We modeled the concept of a paper-based Early Screen for Discharge Planning – Child Version, which identifies children with multiple medical conditions, home nursing-care needs, tube feedings, presence of intravenous lines or drains, or post hospital care that requires coordination.¹We opted for an electronic tool to automate screening and increase visibilty of patients’ care transitional needs via the electronic health record (EHR).

The tool was designed by our QI team to address weaknesses in our discharge process (eg, discharge instructions that are not translated appropriately) and causes of preventable readmission at our institution (eg, discharge teaching, home care, and medication-related problems).^2,3 The tool’s selected components comprised those that might complicate or delay discharge care and included indicators of home health, polypharmacy, and caregiver language preference. Additional features were considered but withheld from the initial tool for several reasons noted in the methods.

We describe the development and implementation of this electronic tool. Given the paucity of pediatric risk models, we conducted an analysis of the tool’s potential to predict readmissions. We anticipated good predictive performance because the tool includes measures previously associated with readmission (eg, technology dependence, polypharmacy, and language barrier).^4-7 If successful in distinguishing readmission, this embedded discharge planning tool could also serve as a pediatric readmission risk score.

Setting

This work was conducted at the Children’s Hospital Colorado as part of a national QI collaborative. The hospital’s EHR is Epic (Verona, Wisconsin). The project was approved as QI by the Children’s Hospital Organizational Research Risk and Quality Improvement Review Panel, precluding review from the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board.

Tool Design, Implementation, and Use

A team of clinicians, nurse–family educators, case managers, social workers, and informatics experts helped design the instrument between 2014 and 2015. In addition to the selected features (number of discharge medications, presence of home health, and language preference), we considered adding the number of consulting specialists but had previously improved our process for scheduling follow-up appointments. Diagnoses were not systematically or discretely documented to be reliably extracted in real time. We excluded known readmission predictor variables (such as length of stay [LOS] and prior hospitalizations) from the initial model to maintain emphasis on the modifiable discharge processes. Additional considerations, such as health literacy and social determinants, were not systematically measured to be operationally usable.

To generate the score, the clinical documentation of home-health orders categorizes children with home care. Each home-care equipment or service category is documented in separate flowsheet rows, allowing for identification of distinct categories (Table). Total parenteral nutrition, intravenous medications, and durable medical equipment and supplies are counted as home care. The number of discharge medications is approximated by inpatient medication orders and finalized as the number of discharge medication orders. The medications include new, historic, and as-needed medications (if included among discharge medication orders). Home oxygen is not counted as medication. The preferred language of the family caregiver is recorded during patient registration or by the admitting inpatient nurse and is gleaned from either of these flowsheet sources.

Evaluation of Predictive Utility for Readmission

We performed a retrospective cohort study on patients aged 0-21 years who were discharged between January 1, 2014 and December 30, 2015. This study was performed to determine the optimal cut points for the continuous variables (discharge medications and home-care orders) and to evaluate the predictive value of the composite score.

Unplanned readmission within 30 days was used as the primary outcome. The index hospitalization was randomly selected for patients with >1 admissions to avoid biasing the results with multiple hospitalizations from individual patients.

Patient characteristics were summarized using percentages for categorical variables and the median and interquartile range (IQR) for continuous variables. We examined bivariate associations for each of the tool’s predictor elements with readmission using Chi-square and Wilcoxon tests (level of statistical significance was set at 0.05). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses established optimal dichotomization points for medications and home-care orders using the maximized Youden’s index (sensitivity + specificity – 1).⁹ Dichotomization of these variables was selected for ease of implementation and interpretation. Similarly, the composite score was treated as a categorical predictor and because sensitivity analysis using it as a continuous predictor did not improve the tool's discriminatory properties.

The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was estimated to evaluate the performance of the composite score (as a categorical variable) using a predictive logistic regression model. To establish internal validity, we performed 10-fold cross validation analysis.¹⁰ Measures of predictive performance included the c statistic and the Brier score. The c statistic represents the discriminative ability of a model. A model with AUC > 0.9 signifies high discrimination, 0.7-0.9 indicates moderate discrimination, and 0.5-0.7 suggests low discrimination. The Brier score is a measure of the overall accuracy of the predictions and ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 representing perfect accuracy.¹⁰ Analyses were performed using SAS v9.4.

Cohort Characteristics

Analysis was restricted to patients with at least 30 days of available follow-up time after the index admission (N = 29,542 patients; Figure). Patient characteristics from the index admission are shown in the Table. The median age was 5 years, and median LOS was 2 days. A total of 19% of patients were discharged with ≥6 discharge medications, 15% received ≥1 home-health orders, and 10% were documented to have a non-English speaking family caregiver. Almost 28% had a composite score of 1 and 8% a score ≥2. The unplanned 30-day readmission rate was 4%. In bivariate analysis, children with readmission had longer LOS, more discharge medications, and more home care than children without readmission. Caregiver language preference was not associated with readmission.

ROC analysis indicated that dichotomizing number of medications at ≥6 vs. <6 and home health at 0 vs. ≥1 categories maximized the sensitivity and specificity for predicting 30-day unplanned readmissions. In predictive logistic regression analysis, the odds of readmission was significantly higher in children with a composite score of 1 vs. 0 (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; 95% CI 1.5-2) and a score of ≥2 vs. 0 (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 3.6-4.9). The c statistic for this model was 0.62, and the Brier score was 0.037. Internal validation of the predictive logistic regression model yielded identical results.

Disclosures

The authors have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Funding

This study was supported by an institutional Clinical and Operational Effectiveness and Patient Safety Small Grants Program

As hospitalized children become more medically complex, hospital-to-home care transitions will become increasingly challenging. During a quality improvement (QI) initiative, we developed an electronic tool to improve the quality of our hospital discharge process.

We modeled the concept of a paper-based Early Screen for Discharge Planning – Child Version, which identifies children with multiple medical conditions, home nursing-care needs, tube feedings, presence of intravenous lines or drains, or post hospital care that requires coordination.¹We opted for an electronic tool to automate screening and increase visibilty of patients’ care transitional needs via the electronic health record (EHR).

The tool was designed by our QI team to address weaknesses in our discharge process (eg, discharge instructions that are not translated appropriately) and causes of preventable readmission at our institution (eg, discharge teaching, home care, and medication-related problems).^2,3 The tool’s selected components comprised those that might complicate or delay discharge care and included indicators of home health, polypharmacy, and caregiver language preference. Additional features were considered but withheld from the initial tool for several reasons noted in the methods.

We describe the development and implementation of this electronic tool. Given the paucity of pediatric risk models, we conducted an analysis of the tool’s potential to predict readmissions. We anticipated good predictive performance because the tool includes measures previously associated with readmission (eg, technology dependence, polypharmacy, and language barrier).^4-7 If successful in distinguishing readmission, this embedded discharge planning tool could also serve as a pediatric readmission risk score.

Setting

This work was conducted at the Children’s Hospital Colorado as part of a national QI collaborative. The hospital’s EHR is Epic (Verona, Wisconsin). The project was approved as QI by the Children’s Hospital Organizational Research Risk and Quality Improvement Review Panel, precluding review from the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board.

Tool Design, Implementation, and Use

A team of clinicians, nurse–family educators, case managers, social workers, and informatics experts helped design the instrument between 2014 and 2015. In addition to the selected features (number of discharge medications, presence of home health, and language preference), we considered adding the number of consulting specialists but had previously improved our process for scheduling follow-up appointments. Diagnoses were not systematically or discretely documented to be reliably extracted in real time. We excluded known readmission predictor variables (such as length of stay [LOS] and prior hospitalizations) from the initial model to maintain emphasis on the modifiable discharge processes. Additional considerations, such as health literacy and social determinants, were not systematically measured to be operationally usable.

To generate the score, the clinical documentation of home-health orders categorizes children with home care. Each home-care equipment or service category is documented in separate flowsheet rows, allowing for identification of distinct categories (Table). Total parenteral nutrition, intravenous medications, and durable medical equipment and supplies are counted as home care. The number of discharge medications is approximated by inpatient medication orders and finalized as the number of discharge medication orders. The medications include new, historic, and as-needed medications (if included among discharge medication orders). Home oxygen is not counted as medication. The preferred language of the family caregiver is recorded during patient registration or by the admitting inpatient nurse and is gleaned from either of these flowsheet sources.

Evaluation of Predictive Utility for Readmission

We performed a retrospective cohort study on patients aged 0-21 years who were discharged between January 1, 2014 and December 30, 2015. This study was performed to determine the optimal cut points for the continuous variables (discharge medications and home-care orders) and to evaluate the predictive value of the composite score.

Unplanned readmission within 30 days was used as the primary outcome. The index hospitalization was randomly selected for patients with >1 admissions to avoid biasing the results with multiple hospitalizations from individual patients.

Patient characteristics were summarized using percentages for categorical variables and the median and interquartile range (IQR) for continuous variables. We examined bivariate associations for each of the tool’s predictor elements with readmission using Chi-square and Wilcoxon tests (level of statistical significance was set at 0.05). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses established optimal dichotomization points for medications and home-care orders using the maximized Youden’s index (sensitivity + specificity – 1).⁹ Dichotomization of these variables was selected for ease of implementation and interpretation. Similarly, the composite score was treated as a categorical predictor and because sensitivity analysis using it as a continuous predictor did not improve the tool's discriminatory properties.

The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was estimated to evaluate the performance of the composite score (as a categorical variable) using a predictive logistic regression model. To establish internal validity, we performed 10-fold cross validation analysis.¹⁰ Measures of predictive performance included the c statistic and the Brier score. The c statistic represents the discriminative ability of a model. A model with AUC > 0.9 signifies high discrimination, 0.7-0.9 indicates moderate discrimination, and 0.5-0.7 suggests low discrimination. The Brier score is a measure of the overall accuracy of the predictions and ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 representing perfect accuracy.¹⁰ Analyses were performed using SAS v9.4.

Cohort Characteristics

Analysis was restricted to patients with at least 30 days of available follow-up time after the index admission (N = 29,542 patients; Figure). Patient characteristics from the index admission are shown in the Table. The median age was 5 years, and median LOS was 2 days. A total of 19% of patients were discharged with ≥6 discharge medications, 15% received ≥1 home-health orders, and 10% were documented to have a non-English speaking family caregiver. Almost 28% had a composite score of 1 and 8% a score ≥2. The unplanned 30-day readmission rate was 4%. In bivariate analysis, children with readmission had longer LOS, more discharge medications, and more home care than children without readmission. Caregiver language preference was not associated with readmission.

ROC analysis indicated that dichotomizing number of medications at ≥6 vs. <6 and home health at 0 vs. ≥1 categories maximized the sensitivity and specificity for predicting 30-day unplanned readmissions. In predictive logistic regression analysis, the odds of readmission was significantly higher in children with a composite score of 1 vs. 0 (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; 95% CI 1.5-2) and a score of ≥2 vs. 0 (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 3.6-4.9). The c statistic for this model was 0.62, and the Brier score was 0.037. Internal validation of the predictive logistic regression model yielded identical results.

Disclosures

The authors have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Funding

This study was supported by an institutional Clinical and Operational Effectiveness and Patient Safety Small Grants Program

As hospitalized children become more medically complex, hospital-to-home care transitions will become increasingly challenging. During a quality improvement (QI) initiative, we developed an electronic tool to improve the quality of our hospital discharge process.

We modeled the concept of a paper-based Early Screen for Discharge Planning – Child Version, which identifies children with multiple medical conditions, home nursing-care needs, tube feedings, presence of intravenous lines or drains, or post hospital care that requires coordination.¹We opted for an electronic tool to automate screening and increase visibilty of patients’ care transitional needs via the electronic health record (EHR).

The tool was designed by our QI team to address weaknesses in our discharge process (eg, discharge instructions that are not translated appropriately) and causes of preventable readmission at our institution (eg, discharge teaching, home care, and medication-related problems).^2,3 The tool’s selected components comprised those that might complicate or delay discharge care and included indicators of home health, polypharmacy, and caregiver language preference. Additional features were considered but withheld from the initial tool for several reasons noted in the methods.

We describe the development and implementation of this electronic tool. Given the paucity of pediatric risk models, we conducted an analysis of the tool’s potential to predict readmissions. We anticipated good predictive performance because the tool includes measures previously associated with readmission (eg, technology dependence, polypharmacy, and language barrier).^4-7 If successful in distinguishing readmission, this embedded discharge planning tool could also serve as a pediatric readmission risk score.

Setting

This work was conducted at the Children’s Hospital Colorado as part of a national QI collaborative. The hospital’s EHR is Epic (Verona, Wisconsin). The project was approved as QI by the Children’s Hospital Organizational Research Risk and Quality Improvement Review Panel, precluding review from the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board.

Tool Design, Implementation, and Use

A team of clinicians, nurse–family educators, case managers, social workers, and informatics experts helped design the instrument between 2014 and 2015. In addition to the selected features (number of discharge medications, presence of home health, and language preference), we considered adding the number of consulting specialists but had previously improved our process for scheduling follow-up appointments. Diagnoses were not systematically or discretely documented to be reliably extracted in real time. We excluded known readmission predictor variables (such as length of stay [LOS] and prior hospitalizations) from the initial model to maintain emphasis on the modifiable discharge processes. Additional considerations, such as health literacy and social determinants, were not systematically measured to be operationally usable.

To generate the score, the clinical documentation of home-health orders categorizes children with home care. Each home-care equipment or service category is documented in separate flowsheet rows, allowing for identification of distinct categories (Table). Total parenteral nutrition, intravenous medications, and durable medical equipment and supplies are counted as home care. The number of discharge medications is approximated by inpatient medication orders and finalized as the number of discharge medication orders. The medications include new, historic, and as-needed medications (if included among discharge medication orders). Home oxygen is not counted as medication. The preferred language of the family caregiver is recorded during patient registration or by the admitting inpatient nurse and is gleaned from either of these flowsheet sources.

Evaluation of Predictive Utility for Readmission

We performed a retrospective cohort study on patients aged 0-21 years who were discharged between January 1, 2014 and December 30, 2015. This study was performed to determine the optimal cut points for the continuous variables (discharge medications and home-care orders) and to evaluate the predictive value of the composite score.

Unplanned readmission within 30 days was used as the primary outcome. The index hospitalization was randomly selected for patients with >1 admissions to avoid biasing the results with multiple hospitalizations from individual patients.

Patient characteristics were summarized using percentages for categorical variables and the median and interquartile range (IQR) for continuous variables. We examined bivariate associations for each of the tool’s predictor elements with readmission using Chi-square and Wilcoxon tests (level of statistical significance was set at 0.05). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses established optimal dichotomization points for medications and home-care orders using the maximized Youden’s index (sensitivity + specificity – 1).⁹ Dichotomization of these variables was selected for ease of implementation and interpretation. Similarly, the composite score was treated as a categorical predictor and because sensitivity analysis using it as a continuous predictor did not improve the tool's discriminatory properties.

The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was estimated to evaluate the performance of the composite score (as a categorical variable) using a predictive logistic regression model. To establish internal validity, we performed 10-fold cross validation analysis.¹⁰ Measures of predictive performance included the c statistic and the Brier score. The c statistic represents the discriminative ability of a model. A model with AUC > 0.9 signifies high discrimination, 0.7-0.9 indicates moderate discrimination, and 0.5-0.7 suggests low discrimination. The Brier score is a measure of the overall accuracy of the predictions and ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 representing perfect accuracy.¹⁰ Analyses were performed using SAS v9.4.

Cohort Characteristics

Analysis was restricted to patients with at least 30 days of available follow-up time after the index admission (N = 29,542 patients; Figure). Patient characteristics from the index admission are shown in the Table. The median age was 5 years, and median LOS was 2 days. A total of 19% of patients were discharged with ≥6 discharge medications, 15% received ≥1 home-health orders, and 10% were documented to have a non-English speaking family caregiver. Almost 28% had a composite score of 1 and 8% a score ≥2. The unplanned 30-day readmission rate was 4%. In bivariate analysis, children with readmission had longer LOS, more discharge medications, and more home care than children without readmission. Caregiver language preference was not associated with readmission.

ROC analysis indicated that dichotomizing number of medications at ≥6 vs. <6 and home health at 0 vs. ≥1 categories maximized the sensitivity and specificity for predicting 30-day unplanned readmissions. In predictive logistic regression analysis, the odds of readmission was significantly higher in children with a composite score of 1 vs. 0 (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; 95% CI 1.5-2) and a score of ≥2 vs. 0 (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 3.6-4.9). The c statistic for this model was 0.62, and the Brier score was 0.037. Internal validation of the predictive logistic regression model yielded identical results.

Disclosures

The authors have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Funding

This study was supported by an institutional Clinical and Operational Effectiveness and Patient Safety Small Grants Program

Many hospitals are considering or currently employing initiatives to contact patients after discharge. Whether conducted via telephone or other means, the purpose of the contact is to help patients adhere to discharge plans, fulfill discharge needs, and alleviate postdischarge issues (PDIs). The effectiveness of hospital-initiated postdischarge phone calls has been studied in adult patients after hospitalization, and though some studies report positive outcomes,^1-3 a 2006 Cochrane review found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the practice.⁴

Little is known about follow-up contact after hospitalization for children.^5-11 Rates of PDI vary substantially across hospitals. For example, one single-center study of postdischarge telephone contact after hospitalization on a general pediatric ward identified PDIs in ~20% of patients.¹⁰ Another study identified PDIs in 84% of patients discharged from a pediatric rehabilitation facility.¹¹ Telephone follow-up has been associated with reduced health resource utilization and improved patient satisfaction for children discharged after an elective surgical procedure⁶ and for children discharged home from the emergency department.^7-9

More information is needed on the clinical experiences of postdischarge contact in hospitalized children to improve the understanding of how the contact is made, who makes it, and which patients are most likely to report a PDI. These experiences are crucial to understand given the expense and time commitment involved in postdischarge contact, as many hospitals may not be positioned to contact all discharged patients. Therefore, we conducted a pragmatic, retrospective, naturalistic study of differing approaches to postdischarge contact occurring in multiple hospitals. Our main objective was to describe the prevalence and types of PDIs identified by the different approaches for follow-up contact across 4 children’s hospitals. We also assessed the characteristics of children who have the highest likelihood of having a PDI identified from the contact within each hospital.

Study Design, Setting, and Population

Main Outcome Measures

The main outcome measure was identification of a PDI, defined as a medication, appointment, or other discharge-related issue, that was reported and recorded by the child’s caregiver during conversation from the standardized questions that were asked during follow-up contact as part of routine discharge care (Table 1). Medication PDIs included issues filling prescriptions and tolerating medications. Appointment PDIs included not having a follow-up appointment scheduled. Other PDIs included issues with the child’s health condition, discharge instructions, or any other concerns. All PDIs had been recorded prospectively by hospital contact personnel (hospitals A, B, and D) or through an automated texting system into a database (hospital C). Where available, free text comments that were recorded by contact personnel were reviewed by one of the authors (KB) and categorized via an existing framework of PDI designed by Heath et al.¹⁰ in order to further understand the problems that were reported.

Patient Characteristics

Patient hospitalization, demographic, and clinical characteristics were obtained from administrative health data at each institution and compared between children with versus without a PDI. Hospitalization characteristics included length of stay, season of admission, and reason for admission. Reason for admission was categorized by using 3M Health’s All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR-DRG) (3M, Maplewood, MN). Demographic characteristics included age at admission in years, insurance type (eg, public, private, and other), and race/ethnicity (Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white, and other).

Clinical characteristics included a count of the different classes of medications (eg, antibiotics, antiepileptic medications, digestive motility medications, etc.) administered to the child during admission, the type and number of chronic conditions, and assistance with medical technology (eg, gastrostomy, tracheostomy, etc.). Except for medications, these characteristics were assessed with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision-Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes.

We used the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Chronic Condition Indicator classification system, which categorizes over 14,000 ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes into chronic versus nonchronic conditions to identify the presence and number of chronic conditions.¹² Children hospitalized with a chronic condition were further classified as having a complex chronic condition (CCC) by using the ICD-9-CM diagnosis classification scheme of Feudtner et al.¹³ CCCs represent defined diagnosis groupings of conditions expected to last longer than 12 months and involve either multiple organ systems or a single organ system severely enough to require specialty pediatric care and hospitalization.^13,14 Children requiring medical technology were identified by using ICD-9-CM codes indicating their use of a medical device to manage and treat a chronic illness (eg, ventricular shunt to treat hydrocephalus) or to maintain basic body functions necessary for sustaining life (eg a tracheostomy tube for breathing).^15,16

Statistical Analysis

Given that the primary purpose for this study was to leverage the natural heterogeneity in the approach to follow-up contact across hospitals, we assessed and reported the prevalence and type of PDIs independently for each hospital. Relatedly, we assessed the relationship between patient characteristics and PDI likelihood independently within each hospital as well rather than pool the data and perform a central analysis across hospitals. Of note, APR-DRG and medication class were not assessed for hospital D, as this information was unavailable. We used χ² tests for univariable analysis and logistic regression with a backwards elimination derivation process (for variables with P ≥ .05) for multivariable analysis; all patient demographic, clinical, and hospitalization characteristics were entered initially into the models. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC), and P < .05 was considered statistically significant. This study was approved by the institutional review board at all hospitals.

Study Population

There were 12,986 (51.4%) of 25,259 patients reached by follow-up contact after discharge across the 4 hospitals. Median age at admission for contacted patients was 4.0 years (interquartile range [IQR] 0-11). Of those contacted, 45.2% were female, 59.9% were non-Hispanic white, 51.0% used Medicaid, and 95.4% were discharged to home. Seventy-one percent had a chronic condition (of any complexity) and 40.8% had a CCC. Eighty percent received a prescribed medication during the hospitalization. Median (IQR) length of stay was 2.0 days (IQR 1-4 days). The top 5 most common reasons for admission were bronchiolitis (6.3%), pneumonia (6.2%), asthma (5.2%), seizure (4.9%), and tonsil and adenoid procedures (4.1%).

PDIs

Characteristics Associated with PDIs

Age

Older age was a consistent characteristic associated with PDIs in 3 hospitals. For example, PDI rates in children 10 to 18 years versus <1 year were 30.8% versus 21.4% (P < .001) in hospital A, 19.4% versus 13.7% (P = .002) in hospital B, and 70.3% versus 62.8% (P < .001) in hospital D. In multivariable analysis, age 10 to 18 years versus <1 year at admission was associated with an increased likelihood of PDI in hospital A (odds ratio [OR] 1.7; 95% CI, 1.4-2.0), hospital B (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8), and hospital D (OR 1.7; 95% CI, 0.9-3.0) (Table 3 and Figure).

Medications

Length of Stay

Shorter length of stay was associated with PDI in 1 hospital. In hospital A, the PDI rate increased significantly (P < .001) from 19.0% to 33.9% as length of stay decreased from ≥7 days to ≤1 day (Table 3). In multivariable analysis, length of stay to ≤1 day versus ≥7 days was associated with increased likelihood of PDI (OR 2.1; 95% CI, 1.7-2.5) in hospital A (Table 3 and Figure).

CCCs

A neuromuscular CCC was associated with PDI in 2 hospitals. In hospital B, the PDI rate was higher in children with a neuromuscular CCC compared with a malignancy CCC (21.3% vs 11.2%). In hospital D, the PDI rates were higher in children with a neuromuscular CCC compared with a respiratory CCC (68.9% vs 40.6%) (Table 3). In multivariable analysis, children with versus without a neuromuscular CCC had an increased likelihood of PDI (OR 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.7) in hospital B (Table 3 and Figure).

In this retrospective, pragmatic, multicentered study of follow-up contact with a standardized set of questions asked after discharge for hospitalized children, we found that PDIs were identified often, regardless of who made the contact or how the contact was made. The PDI rates varied substantially across hospitals and were likely influenced by the different follow-up approaches that were used. Most PDIs were related to appointments; fewer PDIs were related to medications and other problems. Older age, shorter length of stay, and neuromuscular CCCs were among the identified risk factors for PDIs.

Our assessment of PDIs was, by design, associated with variation in methods and approach for detection across sites. Further investigation is needed to understand how different approaches for follow-up contact after discharge may influence the identification of PDIs. For example, in the current study, the hospital with the highest PDI rate (hospital D) used hospitalists who provided inpatient care for the patient to make follow-up contact. Although not determined from the current study, this approach could have led the hospitalists to ask questions beyond the standardized ones when assessing for PDIs. Perhaps some of the hospitalists had a better understanding of how to probe for PDIs specific to each patient; this understanding may not have been forthcoming for staff in the other hospitals who were unfamiliar with the patients’ hospitalization course and medical history.

Similar to previous studies in adults, our study reported that appointment PDIs in children may be more common than other types of PDIs.¹⁷ Appointment PDIs could have been due to scheduling difficulties, inadequate discharge instructions, lack of adherence to recommended follow-up, or other reasons. Further investigation is needed to elucidate these reasons and to determine how to reduce PDIs related to postdischarge appointments. Some children’s hospitals schedule follow-up appointments prior to discharge to mitigate appointment PDIs that might arise.¹⁸ However, doing that for every hospitalized child is challenging, especially for very short admissions or for weekend discharges when many outpatient and community practices are not open to schedule appointments. Additional exploration is necessary to assess whether this might help explain why some children in the current study with a short versus long length of stay had a higher likelihood of PDI.

The rate of medication PDIs (5.2%) observed in the current study is lower than the rate that is reported in prior literature. Dudas et al.¹ found that medication PDIs occurred in 21% of hospitalized adult patients. One reason for the lower rate of medication PDIs in children may be that they require the use of postdischarge medications less often than adults. Most medication PDIs in the current study involved problems filling a prescription. There was not enough information in the notes taken from the follow-up contact to distinguish the medication PDI etiologies (eg, a prescription was not sent from the hospital team to the pharmacy, prior authorization from an insurance company for a prescription was not obtained, the pharmacy did not stock the medication). To help overcome medication access barriers, some hospitals fill and deliver discharge medications to the patients’ bedside. One study found that children discharged with medication in hand were less likely to have emergency department revisits within 30 days of discharge.¹⁹ Further investigation is needed to assess whether initiatives like these help mitigate medication PDIs in children.

Hospitals may benefit from considering how risk factors for PDIs can be used to prioritize which patients receive follow-up contact, especially in hospitals where contact for all hospitalized patients is not feasible. In the current study, there was variation across hospitals in the profile of risk factors that correlated with increased likelihood of PDI. Some of the risk factors are easier to explain than others. For example, as mentioned above, for some hospitalized children, short length of stay might not permit enough time for hospital staff to set up discharge plans that may sufficiently prevent PDIs. Other risk factors, including older age and neuromuscular CCCs, may require additional assessment (eg, through chart review or in-depth patient and provider interviews) to discover the reasons why they were associated with increased likelihood of PDI. There are additional risk factors that might influence the likelihood of PDI that the current study was not positioned to assess, including health literacy, transportation availability, and language spoken.^20-23

This study has several other limitations in addition to the ones already mentioned. Some children may have experienced PDIs that were not reported at contact (eg, the respondent was unaware that an issue was present), which may have led to an undercounting of PDIs. Alternatively, some caregivers may have been more likely to respond to the contact if their child was experiencing a PDI, which may have led to overcounting. PDIs of nonrespondents were not measured. PDIs identified by postdischarge outpatient and community providers or by families outside of contact were not measured. The current study was not positioned to assess the severity of the PDIs or what interventions (including additional health services) were needed to address them. Although we assessed medication use during admission, we were unable to assess the number and type of medications that were prescribed for use postdischarge. Information about the number and type of follow-up visits needed for each child was not assessed. Given the variety of approaches for follow-up contact, the findings may generalize best to individual hospitals by using an approach that best matches to one of them. The current study is not positioned to correlate quality of discharge care with the rate of PDI.

Despite these limitations, the findings from the current study reinforce that PDIs identified through follow-up contact in discharged patients appear to be common. Of PDIs identified, appointment problems were more prevalent than medication or other types of problems. Short length of stay, older age, and other patient and/or hospitalization attributes were associated with an increased likelihood of PDI. Hospitals caring for children may find this information useful as they strive to optimize their processes for follow-up contact after discharge. To help further evaluate the value and importance of contacting patients after discharge, additional study of PDI in children is warranted, including (1) actions taken to resolve PDIs, (2) the impact of identifying and addressing PDIs on hospital readmission, and (3) postdischarge experiences and health outcomes of children who responded versus those who did not respond to the follow-up contact. Moreover, future multisite, comparative effectiveness studies of PDI may wish to consider standardization of follow-up contact procedures with controlled manipulation of key processes (eg, contact by administrator vs nurse vs physician) to assess best practices.

Disclosure

Mr. Blaine, Ms. O’Neill, and Drs. Berry, Brittan, Rehm, and Steiner were supported by the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children’s Health. The authors have no financial relationships relative to this article to disclose. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Many hospitals are considering or currently employing initiatives to contact patients after discharge. Whether conducted via telephone or other means, the purpose of the contact is to help patients adhere to discharge plans, fulfill discharge needs, and alleviate postdischarge issues (PDIs). The effectiveness of hospital-initiated postdischarge phone calls has been studied in adult patients after hospitalization, and though some studies report positive outcomes,^1-3 a 2006 Cochrane review found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the practice.⁴

Little is known about follow-up contact after hospitalization for children.^5-11 Rates of PDI vary substantially across hospitals. For example, one single-center study of postdischarge telephone contact after hospitalization on a general pediatric ward identified PDIs in ~20% of patients.¹⁰ Another study identified PDIs in 84% of patients discharged from a pediatric rehabilitation facility.¹¹ Telephone follow-up has been associated with reduced health resource utilization and improved patient satisfaction for children discharged after an elective surgical procedure⁶ and for children discharged home from the emergency department.^7-9

More information is needed on the clinical experiences of postdischarge contact in hospitalized children to improve the understanding of how the contact is made, who makes it, and which patients are most likely to report a PDI. These experiences are crucial to understand given the expense and time commitment involved in postdischarge contact, as many hospitals may not be positioned to contact all discharged patients. Therefore, we conducted a pragmatic, retrospective, naturalistic study of differing approaches to postdischarge contact occurring in multiple hospitals. Our main objective was to describe the prevalence and types of PDIs identified by the different approaches for follow-up contact across 4 children’s hospitals. We also assessed the characteristics of children who have the highest likelihood of having a PDI identified from the contact within each hospital.

Study Design, Setting, and Population

Main Outcome Measures

The main outcome measure was identification of a PDI, defined as a medication, appointment, or other discharge-related issue, that was reported and recorded by the child’s caregiver during conversation from the standardized questions that were asked during follow-up contact as part of routine discharge care (Table 1). Medication PDIs included issues filling prescriptions and tolerating medications. Appointment PDIs included not having a follow-up appointment scheduled. Other PDIs included issues with the child’s health condition, discharge instructions, or any other concerns. All PDIs had been recorded prospectively by hospital contact personnel (hospitals A, B, and D) or through an automated texting system into a database (hospital C). Where available, free text comments that were recorded by contact personnel were reviewed by one of the authors (KB) and categorized via an existing framework of PDI designed by Heath et al.¹⁰ in order to further understand the problems that were reported.

Patient Characteristics

Patient hospitalization, demographic, and clinical characteristics were obtained from administrative health data at each institution and compared between children with versus without a PDI. Hospitalization characteristics included length of stay, season of admission, and reason for admission. Reason for admission was categorized by using 3M Health’s All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR-DRG) (3M, Maplewood, MN). Demographic characteristics included age at admission in years, insurance type (eg, public, private, and other), and race/ethnicity (Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white, and other).

Clinical characteristics included a count of the different classes of medications (eg, antibiotics, antiepileptic medications, digestive motility medications, etc.) administered to the child during admission, the type and number of chronic conditions, and assistance with medical technology (eg, gastrostomy, tracheostomy, etc.). Except for medications, these characteristics were assessed with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision-Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes.

We used the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Chronic Condition Indicator classification system, which categorizes over 14,000 ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes into chronic versus nonchronic conditions to identify the presence and number of chronic conditions.¹² Children hospitalized with a chronic condition were further classified as having a complex chronic condition (CCC) by using the ICD-9-CM diagnosis classification scheme of Feudtner et al.¹³ CCCs represent defined diagnosis groupings of conditions expected to last longer than 12 months and involve either multiple organ systems or a single organ system severely enough to require specialty pediatric care and hospitalization.^13,14 Children requiring medical technology were identified by using ICD-9-CM codes indicating their use of a medical device to manage and treat a chronic illness (eg, ventricular shunt to treat hydrocephalus) or to maintain basic body functions necessary for sustaining life (eg a tracheostomy tube for breathing).^15,16

Statistical Analysis

Given that the primary purpose for this study was to leverage the natural heterogeneity in the approach to follow-up contact across hospitals, we assessed and reported the prevalence and type of PDIs independently for each hospital. Relatedly, we assessed the relationship between patient characteristics and PDI likelihood independently within each hospital as well rather than pool the data and perform a central analysis across hospitals. Of note, APR-DRG and medication class were not assessed for hospital D, as this information was unavailable. We used χ² tests for univariable analysis and logistic regression with a backwards elimination derivation process (for variables with P ≥ .05) for multivariable analysis; all patient demographic, clinical, and hospitalization characteristics were entered initially into the models. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC), and P < .05 was considered statistically significant. This study was approved by the institutional review board at all hospitals.

Study Population

There were 12,986 (51.4%) of 25,259 patients reached by follow-up contact after discharge across the 4 hospitals. Median age at admission for contacted patients was 4.0 years (interquartile range [IQR] 0-11). Of those contacted, 45.2% were female, 59.9% were non-Hispanic white, 51.0% used Medicaid, and 95.4% were discharged to home. Seventy-one percent had a chronic condition (of any complexity) and 40.8% had a CCC. Eighty percent received a prescribed medication during the hospitalization. Median (IQR) length of stay was 2.0 days (IQR 1-4 days). The top 5 most common reasons for admission were bronchiolitis (6.3%), pneumonia (6.2%), asthma (5.2%), seizure (4.9%), and tonsil and adenoid procedures (4.1%).

PDIs

Characteristics Associated with PDIs

Age

Older age was a consistent characteristic associated with PDIs in 3 hospitals. For example, PDI rates in children 10 to 18 years versus <1 year were 30.8% versus 21.4% (P < .001) in hospital A, 19.4% versus 13.7% (P = .002) in hospital B, and 70.3% versus 62.8% (P < .001) in hospital D. In multivariable analysis, age 10 to 18 years versus <1 year at admission was associated with an increased likelihood of PDI in hospital A (odds ratio [OR] 1.7; 95% CI, 1.4-2.0), hospital B (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8), and hospital D (OR 1.7; 95% CI, 0.9-3.0) (Table 3 and Figure).

Medications

Length of Stay

Shorter length of stay was associated with PDI in 1 hospital. In hospital A, the PDI rate increased significantly (P < .001) from 19.0% to 33.9% as length of stay decreased from ≥7 days to ≤1 day (Table 3). In multivariable analysis, length of stay to ≤1 day versus ≥7 days was associated with increased likelihood of PDI (OR 2.1; 95% CI, 1.7-2.5) in hospital A (Table 3 and Figure).

CCCs

A neuromuscular CCC was associated with PDI in 2 hospitals. In hospital B, the PDI rate was higher in children with a neuromuscular CCC compared with a malignancy CCC (21.3% vs 11.2%). In hospital D, the PDI rates were higher in children with a neuromuscular CCC compared with a respiratory CCC (68.9% vs 40.6%) (Table 3). In multivariable analysis, children with versus without a neuromuscular CCC had an increased likelihood of PDI (OR 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.7) in hospital B (Table 3 and Figure).

In this retrospective, pragmatic, multicentered study of follow-up contact with a standardized set of questions asked after discharge for hospitalized children, we found that PDIs were identified often, regardless of who made the contact or how the contact was made. The PDI rates varied substantially across hospitals and were likely influenced by the different follow-up approaches that were used. Most PDIs were related to appointments; fewer PDIs were related to medications and other problems. Older age, shorter length of stay, and neuromuscular CCCs were among the identified risk factors for PDIs.

Our assessment of PDIs was, by design, associated with variation in methods and approach for detection across sites. Further investigation is needed to understand how different approaches for follow-up contact after discharge may influence the identification of PDIs. For example, in the current study, the hospital with the highest PDI rate (hospital D) used hospitalists who provided inpatient care for the patient to make follow-up contact. Although not determined from the current study, this approach could have led the hospitalists to ask questions beyond the standardized ones when assessing for PDIs. Perhaps some of the hospitalists had a better understanding of how to probe for PDIs specific to each patient; this understanding may not have been forthcoming for staff in the other hospitals who were unfamiliar with the patients’ hospitalization course and medical history.

Similar to previous studies in adults, our study reported that appointment PDIs in children may be more common than other types of PDIs.¹⁷ Appointment PDIs could have been due to scheduling difficulties, inadequate discharge instructions, lack of adherence to recommended follow-up, or other reasons. Further investigation is needed to elucidate these reasons and to determine how to reduce PDIs related to postdischarge appointments. Some children’s hospitals schedule follow-up appointments prior to discharge to mitigate appointment PDIs that might arise.¹⁸ However, doing that for every hospitalized child is challenging, especially for very short admissions or for weekend discharges when many outpatient and community practices are not open to schedule appointments. Additional exploration is necessary to assess whether this might help explain why some children in the current study with a short versus long length of stay had a higher likelihood of PDI.

The rate of medication PDIs (5.2%) observed in the current study is lower than the rate that is reported in prior literature. Dudas et al.¹ found that medication PDIs occurred in 21% of hospitalized adult patients. One reason for the lower rate of medication PDIs in children may be that they require the use of postdischarge medications less often than adults. Most medication PDIs in the current study involved problems filling a prescription. There was not enough information in the notes taken from the follow-up contact to distinguish the medication PDI etiologies (eg, a prescription was not sent from the hospital team to the pharmacy, prior authorization from an insurance company for a prescription was not obtained, the pharmacy did not stock the medication). To help overcome medication access barriers, some hospitals fill and deliver discharge medications to the patients’ bedside. One study found that children discharged with medication in hand were less likely to have emergency department revisits within 30 days of discharge.¹⁹ Further investigation is needed to assess whether initiatives like these help mitigate medication PDIs in children.

Hospitals may benefit from considering how risk factors for PDIs can be used to prioritize which patients receive follow-up contact, especially in hospitals where contact for all hospitalized patients is not feasible. In the current study, there was variation across hospitals in the profile of risk factors that correlated with increased likelihood of PDI. Some of the risk factors are easier to explain than others. For example, as mentioned above, for some hospitalized children, short length of stay might not permit enough time for hospital staff to set up discharge plans that may sufficiently prevent PDIs. Other risk factors, including older age and neuromuscular CCCs, may require additional assessment (eg, through chart review or in-depth patient and provider interviews) to discover the reasons why they were associated with increased likelihood of PDI. There are additional risk factors that might influence the likelihood of PDI that the current study was not positioned to assess, including health literacy, transportation availability, and language spoken.^20-23

This study has several other limitations in addition to the ones already mentioned. Some children may have experienced PDIs that were not reported at contact (eg, the respondent was unaware that an issue was present), which may have led to an undercounting of PDIs. Alternatively, some caregivers may have been more likely to respond to the contact if their child was experiencing a PDI, which may have led to overcounting. PDIs of nonrespondents were not measured. PDIs identified by postdischarge outpatient and community providers or by families outside of contact were not measured. The current study was not positioned to assess the severity of the PDIs or what interventions (including additional health services) were needed to address them. Although we assessed medication use during admission, we were unable to assess the number and type of medications that were prescribed for use postdischarge. Information about the number and type of follow-up visits needed for each child was not assessed. Given the variety of approaches for follow-up contact, the findings may generalize best to individual hospitals by using an approach that best matches to one of them. The current study is not positioned to correlate quality of discharge care with the rate of PDI.

Despite these limitations, the findings from the current study reinforce that PDIs identified through follow-up contact in discharged patients appear to be common. Of PDIs identified, appointment problems were more prevalent than medication or other types of problems. Short length of stay, older age, and other patient and/or hospitalization attributes were associated with an increased likelihood of PDI. Hospitals caring for children may find this information useful as they strive to optimize their processes for follow-up contact after discharge. To help further evaluate the value and importance of contacting patients after discharge, additional study of PDI in children is warranted, including (1) actions taken to resolve PDIs, (2) the impact of identifying and addressing PDIs on hospital readmission, and (3) postdischarge experiences and health outcomes of children who responded versus those who did not respond to the follow-up contact. Moreover, future multisite, comparative effectiveness studies of PDI may wish to consider standardization of follow-up contact procedures with controlled manipulation of key processes (eg, contact by administrator vs nurse vs physician) to assess best practices.

Disclosure

Mr. Blaine, Ms. O’Neill, and Drs. Berry, Brittan, Rehm, and Steiner were supported by the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children’s Health. The authors have no financial relationships relative to this article to disclose. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Many hospitals are considering or currently employing initiatives to contact patients after discharge. Whether conducted via telephone or other means, the purpose of the contact is to help patients adhere to discharge plans, fulfill discharge needs, and alleviate postdischarge issues (PDIs). The effectiveness of hospital-initiated postdischarge phone calls has been studied in adult patients after hospitalization, and though some studies report positive outcomes,^1-3 a 2006 Cochrane review found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the practice.⁴

Little is known about follow-up contact after hospitalization for children.^5-11 Rates of PDI vary substantially across hospitals. For example, one single-center study of postdischarge telephone contact after hospitalization on a general pediatric ward identified PDIs in ~20% of patients.¹⁰ Another study identified PDIs in 84% of patients discharged from a pediatric rehabilitation facility.¹¹ Telephone follow-up has been associated with reduced health resource utilization and improved patient satisfaction for children discharged after an elective surgical procedure⁶ and for children discharged home from the emergency department.^7-9

More information is needed on the clinical experiences of postdischarge contact in hospitalized children to improve the understanding of how the contact is made, who makes it, and which patients are most likely to report a PDI. These experiences are crucial to understand given the expense and time commitment involved in postdischarge contact, as many hospitals may not be positioned to contact all discharged patients. Therefore, we conducted a pragmatic, retrospective, naturalistic study of differing approaches to postdischarge contact occurring in multiple hospitals. Our main objective was to describe the prevalence and types of PDIs identified by the different approaches for follow-up contact across 4 children’s hospitals. We also assessed the characteristics of children who have the highest likelihood of having a PDI identified from the contact within each hospital.

Study Design, Setting, and Population

Main Outcome Measures

The main outcome measure was identification of a PDI, defined as a medication, appointment, or other discharge-related issue, that was reported and recorded by the child’s caregiver during conversation from the standardized questions that were asked during follow-up contact as part of routine discharge care (Table 1). Medication PDIs included issues filling prescriptions and tolerating medications. Appointment PDIs included not having a follow-up appointment scheduled. Other PDIs included issues with the child’s health condition, discharge instructions, or any other concerns. All PDIs had been recorded prospectively by hospital contact personnel (hospitals A, B, and D) or through an automated texting system into a database (hospital C). Where available, free text comments that were recorded by contact personnel were reviewed by one of the authors (KB) and categorized via an existing framework of PDI designed by Heath et al.¹⁰ in order to further understand the problems that were reported.

Patient Characteristics

Patient hospitalization, demographic, and clinical characteristics were obtained from administrative health data at each institution and compared between children with versus without a PDI. Hospitalization characteristics included length of stay, season of admission, and reason for admission. Reason for admission was categorized by using 3M Health’s All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR-DRG) (3M, Maplewood, MN). Demographic characteristics included age at admission in years, insurance type (eg, public, private, and other), and race/ethnicity (Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white, and other).

Clinical characteristics included a count of the different classes of medications (eg, antibiotics, antiepileptic medications, digestive motility medications, etc.) administered to the child during admission, the type and number of chronic conditions, and assistance with medical technology (eg, gastrostomy, tracheostomy, etc.). Except for medications, these characteristics were assessed with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision-Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes.

We used the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Chronic Condition Indicator classification system, which categorizes over 14,000 ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes into chronic versus nonchronic conditions to identify the presence and number of chronic conditions.¹² Children hospitalized with a chronic condition were further classified as having a complex chronic condition (CCC) by using the ICD-9-CM diagnosis classification scheme of Feudtner et al.¹³ CCCs represent defined diagnosis groupings of conditions expected to last longer than 12 months and involve either multiple organ systems or a single organ system severely enough to require specialty pediatric care and hospitalization.^13,14 Children requiring medical technology were identified by using ICD-9-CM codes indicating their use of a medical device to manage and treat a chronic illness (eg, ventricular shunt to treat hydrocephalus) or to maintain basic body functions necessary for sustaining life (eg a tracheostomy tube for breathing).^15,16

Statistical Analysis

Given that the primary purpose for this study was to leverage the natural heterogeneity in the approach to follow-up contact across hospitals, we assessed and reported the prevalence and type of PDIs independently for each hospital. Relatedly, we assessed the relationship between patient characteristics and PDI likelihood independently within each hospital as well rather than pool the data and perform a central analysis across hospitals. Of note, APR-DRG and medication class were not assessed for hospital D, as this information was unavailable. We used χ² tests for univariable analysis and logistic regression with a backwards elimination derivation process (for variables with P ≥ .05) for multivariable analysis; all patient demographic, clinical, and hospitalization characteristics were entered initially into the models. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC), and P < .05 was considered statistically significant. This study was approved by the institutional review board at all hospitals.

Study Population

There were 12,986 (51.4%) of 25,259 patients reached by follow-up contact after discharge across the 4 hospitals. Median age at admission for contacted patients was 4.0 years (interquartile range [IQR] 0-11). Of those contacted, 45.2% were female, 59.9% were non-Hispanic white, 51.0% used Medicaid, and 95.4% were discharged to home. Seventy-one percent had a chronic condition (of any complexity) and 40.8% had a CCC. Eighty percent received a prescribed medication during the hospitalization. Median (IQR) length of stay was 2.0 days (IQR 1-4 days). The top 5 most common reasons for admission were bronchiolitis (6.3%), pneumonia (6.2%), asthma (5.2%), seizure (4.9%), and tonsil and adenoid procedures (4.1%).

PDIs

Characteristics Associated with PDIs

Age

Older age was a consistent characteristic associated with PDIs in 3 hospitals. For example, PDI rates in children 10 to 18 years versus <1 year were 30.8% versus 21.4% (P < .001) in hospital A, 19.4% versus 13.7% (P = .002) in hospital B, and 70.3% versus 62.8% (P < .001) in hospital D. In multivariable analysis, age 10 to 18 years versus <1 year at admission was associated with an increased likelihood of PDI in hospital A (odds ratio [OR] 1.7; 95% CI, 1.4-2.0), hospital B (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8), and hospital D (OR 1.7; 95% CI, 0.9-3.0) (Table 3 and Figure).

Medications

Length of Stay

Shorter length of stay was associated with PDI in 1 hospital. In hospital A, the PDI rate increased significantly (P < .001) from 19.0% to 33.9% as length of stay decreased from ≥7 days to ≤1 day (Table 3). In multivariable analysis, length of stay to ≤1 day versus ≥7 days was associated with increased likelihood of PDI (OR 2.1; 95% CI, 1.7-2.5) in hospital A (Table 3 and Figure).

CCCs

A neuromuscular CCC was associated with PDI in 2 hospitals. In hospital B, the PDI rate was higher in children with a neuromuscular CCC compared with a malignancy CCC (21.3% vs 11.2%). In hospital D, the PDI rates were higher in children with a neuromuscular CCC compared with a respiratory CCC (68.9% vs 40.6%) (Table 3). In multivariable analysis, children with versus without a neuromuscular CCC had an increased likelihood of PDI (OR 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.7) in hospital B (Table 3 and Figure).

In this retrospective, pragmatic, multicentered study of follow-up contact with a standardized set of questions asked after discharge for hospitalized children, we found that PDIs were identified often, regardless of who made the contact or how the contact was made. The PDI rates varied substantially across hospitals and were likely influenced by the different follow-up approaches that were used. Most PDIs were related to appointments; fewer PDIs were related to medications and other problems. Older age, shorter length of stay, and neuromuscular CCCs were among the identified risk factors for PDIs.

Our assessment of PDIs was, by design, associated with variation in methods and approach for detection across sites. Further investigation is needed to understand how different approaches for follow-up contact after discharge may influence the identification of PDIs. For example, in the current study, the hospital with the highest PDI rate (hospital D) used hospitalists who provided inpatient care for the patient to make follow-up contact. Although not determined from the current study, this approach could have led the hospitalists to ask questions beyond the standardized ones when assessing for PDIs. Perhaps some of the hospitalists had a better understanding of how to probe for PDIs specific to each patient; this understanding may not have been forthcoming for staff in the other hospitals who were unfamiliar with the patients’ hospitalization course and medical history.

Similar to previous studies in adults, our study reported that appointment PDIs in children may be more common than other types of PDIs.¹⁷ Appointment PDIs could have been due to scheduling difficulties, inadequate discharge instructions, lack of adherence to recommended follow-up, or other reasons. Further investigation is needed to elucidate these reasons and to determine how to reduce PDIs related to postdischarge appointments. Some children’s hospitals schedule follow-up appointments prior to discharge to mitigate appointment PDIs that might arise.¹⁸ However, doing that for every hospitalized child is challenging, especially for very short admissions or for weekend discharges when many outpatient and community practices are not open to schedule appointments. Additional exploration is necessary to assess whether this might help explain why some children in the current study with a short versus long length of stay had a higher likelihood of PDI.

The rate of medication PDIs (5.2%) observed in the current study is lower than the rate that is reported in prior literature. Dudas et al.¹ found that medication PDIs occurred in 21% of hospitalized adult patients. One reason for the lower rate of medication PDIs in children may be that they require the use of postdischarge medications less often than adults. Most medication PDIs in the current study involved problems filling a prescription. There was not enough information in the notes taken from the follow-up contact to distinguish the medication PDI etiologies (eg, a prescription was not sent from the hospital team to the pharmacy, prior authorization from an insurance company for a prescription was not obtained, the pharmacy did not stock the medication). To help overcome medication access barriers, some hospitals fill and deliver discharge medications to the patients’ bedside. One study found that children discharged with medication in hand were less likely to have emergency department revisits within 30 days of discharge.¹⁹ Further investigation is needed to assess whether initiatives like these help mitigate medication PDIs in children.

Hospitals may benefit from considering how risk factors for PDIs can be used to prioritize which patients receive follow-up contact, especially in hospitals where contact for all hospitalized patients is not feasible. In the current study, there was variation across hospitals in the profile of risk factors that correlated with increased likelihood of PDI. Some of the risk factors are easier to explain than others. For example, as mentioned above, for some hospitalized children, short length of stay might not permit enough time for hospital staff to set up discharge plans that may sufficiently prevent PDIs. Other risk factors, including older age and neuromuscular CCCs, may require additional assessment (eg, through chart review or in-depth patient and provider interviews) to discover the reasons why they were associated with increased likelihood of PDI. There are additional risk factors that might influence the likelihood of PDI that the current study was not positioned to assess, including health literacy, transportation availability, and language spoken.^20-23

This study has several other limitations in addition to the ones already mentioned. Some children may have experienced PDIs that were not reported at contact (eg, the respondent was unaware that an issue was present), which may have led to an undercounting of PDIs. Alternatively, some caregivers may have been more likely to respond to the contact if their child was experiencing a PDI, which may have led to overcounting. PDIs of nonrespondents were not measured. PDIs identified by postdischarge outpatient and community providers or by families outside of contact were not measured. The current study was not positioned to assess the severity of the PDIs or what interventions (including additional health services) were needed to address them. Although we assessed medication use during admission, we were unable to assess the number and type of medications that were prescribed for use postdischarge. Information about the number and type of follow-up visits needed for each child was not assessed. Given the variety of approaches for follow-up contact, the findings may generalize best to individual hospitals by using an approach that best matches to one of them. The current study is not positioned to correlate quality of discharge care with the rate of PDI.

Despite these limitations, the findings from the current study reinforce that PDIs identified through follow-up contact in discharged patients appear to be common. Of PDIs identified, appointment problems were more prevalent than medication or other types of problems. Short length of stay, older age, and other patient and/or hospitalization attributes were associated with an increased likelihood of PDI. Hospitals caring for children may find this information useful as they strive to optimize their processes for follow-up contact after discharge. To help further evaluate the value and importance of contacting patients after discharge, additional study of PDI in children is warranted, including (1) actions taken to resolve PDIs, (2) the impact of identifying and addressing PDIs on hospital readmission, and (3) postdischarge experiences and health outcomes of children who responded versus those who did not respond to the follow-up contact. Moreover, future multisite, comparative effectiveness studies of PDI may wish to consider standardization of follow-up contact procedures with controlled manipulation of key processes (eg, contact by administrator vs nurse vs physician) to assess best practices.

Disclosure

Mr. Blaine, Ms. O’Neill, and Drs. Berry, Brittan, Rehm, and Steiner were supported by the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children’s Health. The authors have no financial relationships relative to this article to disclose. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.