The mismeasurement of quality by readmission rate: how blunt is too blunt an instrument?: a quantitative bias analysis

Evaluation of quantitative bias analysis in epidemiological research: A systematic review from 2010 to mid-2023

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to demonstrate the use of quantitative bias analysis (QBA), which reveals the effects of systematic error, including confounding, misclassification and selection bias, on study results in epidemiological studies published in the period from 2010 to mid-23.

METHOD

The articles identified through a keyword search using Pubmed and Scopus were included in the study. The articles obtained from this search were eliminated according to the exclusion criteria, and the articles in which QBA analysis was applied were included in the detailed evaluation.

RESULTS

It can be said that the application of QBA analysis has gradually increased over the 13-year period. Accordingly, the number of articles in which simple is used as a method in QBA analysis is 9 (9.89%), the number of articles in which the multidimensional approach is used is 10 (10.99%), the number of articles in which the probabilistic approach is used is 60 (65.93%) and the number of articles in which the method is not specified is 12 (13.19%). The number of articles with misclassification bias model is 44 (48.35%), the number of articles with uncontrolled confounder(s) bias model is 32 (35.16%), the number of articles with selection bias model is 7 (7.69%) and the number of articles using more than one bias model is 8 (8.79%). Of the 49 (53.85%) articles in which the bias parameter source was specified, 19 (38.78%) used internal validation, 26 (53.06%) used external validation and 4 (8.16%) used educated guess, data constraints and hypothetical data. Probabilistic approach was used as a bias method in 60 (65.93%) of the articles, and mostly beta (8 [13.33%)], normal (9 [15.00%]) and uniform (8 [13.33%]) distributions were selected.

CONCLUSION

The application of QBA is rare in the literature but is increasing over time. Future researchers should include detailed analyzes such as QBA analysis to obtain inferences with higher evidence value, taking into account systematic errors.

AI Models for Predicting Readmission of Pneumonia Patients within 30 Days after Discharge

A model with capability for precisely predicting readmission is a target being pursued worldwide. The objective of this study is to design predictive models using artificial intelligence methods and data retrieved from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan for identifying high-risk pneumonia patients with 30-day all-cause readmissions. An integrated genetic algorithm (GA) and support vector machine (SVM), namely IGS, were used to design predictive models optimized with three objective functions. In IGS, GA was used for selecting salient features and optimal SVM parameters, while SVM was used for constructing the models. For comparison, logistic regression (LR) and deep neural network (DNN) were also applied for model construction. The IGS model with AUC used as the objective function achieved an accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under ROC curve (AUC) of 70.11%, 73.46%, 69.26%, and 0.7758, respectively, outperforming the models designed with LR (65.77%, 78.44%, 62.54%, and 0.7689, respectively) and DNN (61.50%, 79.34%, 56.95%, and 0.7547, respectively), as well as previously reported models constructed using thedata of electronic health records with an AUC of 0.71–0.74. It can be used for automatically detecting pneumonia patients with a risk of all-cause readmissions within 30 days after discharge so as to administer suitable interventions to reduce readmission and healthcare costs.

A systematic review of quantitative bias analysis applied to epidemiological research

BACKGROUND

Quantitative bias analysis (QBA) measures study errors in terms of direction, magnitude and uncertainty. This systematic review aimed to describe how QBA has been applied in epidemiological research in 2006-19.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for English peer-reviewed studies applying QBA to real-data applications. We also included studies citing selected sources or which were identified in a previous QBA review in pharmacoepidemiology. For each study, we extracted the rationale, methodology, bias-adjusted results and interpretation and assessed factors associated with reproducibility.

RESULTS

Of the 238 studies, the majority were embedded within papers whose main inferences were drawn from conventional approaches as secondary (sensitivity) analyses to quantity-specific biases (52%) or to assess the extent of bias required to shift the point estimate to the null (25%); 10% were standalone papers. The most common approach was probabilistic (57%). Misclassification was modelled in 57%, uncontrolled confounder(s) in 40% and selection bias in 17%. Most did not consider multiple biases or correlations between errors. When specified, bias parameters came from the literature (48%) more often than internal validation studies (29%). The majority (60%) of analyses resulted in >10% change from the conventional point estimate; however, most investigators (63%) did not alter their original interpretation. Degree of reproducibility related to inclusion of code, formulas, sensitivity analyses and supplementary materials, as well as the QBA rationale.

CONCLUSIONS

QBA applications were rare though increased over time. Future investigators should reference good practices and include details to promote transparency and to serve as a reference for other researchers.

Impact of socio-economic status on unplanned readmission following injury: A multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Unplanned readmissions cost the US economy approximately $17 billion in 2009 with a 30-day incidence of 19.6%. Despite the recognised impact of socio-economic status (SES) on readmission in diagnostic populations such as cardiovascular patients, its impact in trauma patients is unclear. We examined the effect of SES on unplanned readmission following injury in a setting with universal health insurance. We also evaluated whether additional adjustment for SES influenced risk-adjusted readmission rates, used as a quality indicator (QI).

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a multicenter cohort study in an integrated Canadian trauma system involving 56 adult trauma centres using trauma registry and hospital discharge data collected between 2005 and 2010. The main outcome was unplanned 30-day readmission; all cause, due to complications of injury and due to subsequent injury. SES was determined using ecological indices of material and social deprivation. Odds ratios of readmission and 95% confidence intervals adjusted for covariates were generated using multivariable logistic regression with a correction for hospital clusters. We then compared a readmission QI validated previously (original QI) to a QI with additional adjustment for SES (SES-adjusted QI) using the mean absolute difference.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 52,122 trauma admissions of which 6.5% were rehospitalised within 30 days of discharge. Compared to patients in the lowest quintile of social deprivation, those in the highest quintile had a 20% increase in the odds of all-cause unplanned readmission (95% CI=1.06-1.36) and a 27% increase in the odds of readmission due to complications of injury (95% CI=1.04-1.54). No association was observed for material deprivation or for readmissions due to subsequent injuries. We observed a strong agreement between the original and SES-adjusted readmission (mean absolute difference= 0.04%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients admitted for traumatic injury who suffer from social deprivation have an increased risk of unplanned rehospitalisation due to complications of injury in the 30 days following discharge. Better discharge planning or follow up for such patients may improve patient outcome and resource use for trauma admissions. Despite observed associations, results suggest that the trauma QI based on unplanned readmission does not require additional adjustment for SES.

Is the readmission rate a valid quality indicator? A review of the evidence

INTRODUCTION

Hospital readmission rates are increasingly used for both quality improvement and cost control. However, the validity of readmission rates as a measure of quality of hospital care is not evident. We aimed to give an overview of the different methodological aspects in the definition and measurement of readmission rates that need to be considered when interpreting readmission rates as a reflection of quality of care.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review, using the bibliographic databases Embase, Medline OvidSP, Web-of-Science, Cochrane central and PubMed for the period of January 2001 to May 2013.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 102 included papers. We found that definition of the context in which readmissions are used as a quality indicator is crucial. This context includes the patient group and the specific aspects of care of which the quality is aimed to be assessed. Methodological flaws like unreliable data and insufficient case-mix correction may confound the comparison of readmission rates between hospitals. Another problem occurs when the basic distinction between planned and unplanned readmissions cannot be made. Finally, the multi-faceted nature of quality of care and the correlation between readmissions and other outcomes limit the indicator's validity.

CONCLUSIONS

Although readmission rates are a promising quality indicator, several methodological concerns identified in this study need to be addressed, especially when the indicator is intended for accountability or pay for performance. We recommend investing resources in accurate data registration, improved indicator description, and bundling outcome measures to provide a more complete picture of hospital care.