Language, culture and preventable readmissions: pragmatic, intervention studies needed

Elaine C. Khoong, Alicia Fernández
{"title":"Language, culture and preventable readmissions: pragmatic, intervention studies needed","authors":"Elaine C. Khoong, Alicia Fernández","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009836","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Preventable hospital readmissions are considered a marker of care quality. Readmissions burden patients and their families and are a significant driver of healthcare costs.1 2 In the USA (where we are based), readmission penalties have resulted in an array of interventions, ranging from the relatively simple (eg, ensuring a timely follow-up appointment) to bundled interventions with multiple components (eg, medication reconciliation plus phone follow-up plus structured handoff to outpatient clinicians).3 Evaluation results, however, have been mixed and progress in reducing readmissions difficult. Studies generally have provided limited details about interventions and the patient groups involved, making it impossible to know what worked for whom.3 4 Complicating the practical implications of this research is that bundled interventions, which tend to be more successful, require greater investment of clinical and financial resources and at times result in net financial loss, significantly dampening health system enthusiasm for implementation of programmes to reduce admissions.5 Importantly, despite well-documented racial/ethnic disparities in readmission rates,6 many studies in the USA have taken a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach by designing interventions that do not attempt to address the specific needs or circumstances of diverse populations.\n\nThe study by lead author and colleagues in this issue of BMJ Quality & Safety 7 differs from much of the readmission literature in two important ways. First, the study focused on discharge practices and activities adapted for diverse populations. Working with a patient population in Israel that included a diverse groups of patients—Russian-speaking immigrants from the former Soviet Union, Arabic-speakers from several ethnic groups and Hebrew-speakers—the authors examined the association of what they termed cultural factors (eg, …","PeriodicalId":49653,"journal":{"name":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","volume":"28 1","pages":"859 - 861"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009836","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009836","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Preventable hospital readmissions are considered a marker of care quality. Readmissions burden patients and their families and are a significant driver of healthcare costs.1 2 In the USA (where we are based), readmission penalties have resulted in an array of interventions, ranging from the relatively simple (eg, ensuring a timely follow-up appointment) to bundled interventions with multiple components (eg, medication reconciliation plus phone follow-up plus structured handoff to outpatient clinicians).3 Evaluation results, however, have been mixed and progress in reducing readmissions difficult. Studies generally have provided limited details about interventions and the patient groups involved, making it impossible to know what worked for whom.3 4 Complicating the practical implications of this research is that bundled interventions, which tend to be more successful, require greater investment of clinical and financial resources and at times result in net financial loss, significantly dampening health system enthusiasm for implementation of programmes to reduce admissions.5 Importantly, despite well-documented racial/ethnic disparities in readmission rates,6 many studies in the USA have taken a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach by designing interventions that do not attempt to address the specific needs or circumstances of diverse populations. The study by lead author and colleagues in this issue of BMJ Quality & Safety 7 differs from much of the readmission literature in two important ways. First, the study focused on discharge practices and activities adapted for diverse populations. Working with a patient population in Israel that included a diverse groups of patients—Russian-speaking immigrants from the former Soviet Union, Arabic-speakers from several ethnic groups and Hebrew-speakers—the authors examined the association of what they termed cultural factors (eg, …
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
语言、文化和可预防的再入院:需要进行务实的干预研究
可预防的再次入院被认为是护理质量的标志。重新入院给患者及其家人带来负担,是医疗成本的重要驱动因素。1 2在美国(我们所在地),重新入院处罚导致了一系列干预措施,从相对简单的(例如,确保及时的随访预约)到具有多个组成部分的捆绑干预(例如,药物对账加上电话随访加上向门诊临床医生的结构化移交)。3然而,评估结果喜忧参半,在减少再次入院方面进展困难。研究通常提供了有关干预措施和所涉及患者群体的有限细节,因此不可能知道什么对谁有效。3 4使这项研究的实际意义更加复杂的是,捆绑干预往往更成功,需要更多的临床和财政资源投资,有时会导致净经济损失,严重抑制了卫生系统实施减少入院人数计划的热情。5重要的是,尽管有充分的证据表明重新入院率存在种族/族裔差异,6但美国的许多研究都采取了“一刀切”的方法,设计了干预措施,不试图解决不同人群的具体需求或情况。本期《英国医学杂志质量与安全7》的主要作者及其同事的研究在两个重要方面与许多再入院文献不同。首先,该研究侧重于适应不同人群的出院做法和活动。作者对以色列的患者群体进行了研究,其中包括不同的患者群体——来自前苏联的讲俄语的移民、来自几个民族的讲阿拉伯语的人和讲希伯来语的人——研究了他们所说的文化因素(如…
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 去求助
来源期刊
Quality & Safety in Health Care
Quality & Safety in Health Care 医学-卫生保健
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Accuracy of telephone triage for predicting adverse outcomes in suspected COVID-19: an observational cohort study. Quality framework for remote antenatal care: qualitative study with women, healthcare professionals and system-level stakeholders. Addressing social determinants of health in primary care: a quasi-experimental study using unannounced standardised patients to evaluate the impact of audit/feedback on physicians' rates of identifying and responding to social needs. Reporting on implementation trials with null findings: the need for concurrent process evaluation reporting. Antibiotic documentation: death by a thousand clicks.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1