Risk Factors with 30-Day Readmission and the Impact of Length of Hospital Stay on It in Patients with Heart Failure: A Retrospective Observational Study Using a Japanese National Database

Heart failure is a major disease, and its 30-day readmission (readmission within 30-day after discharge) negatively impacts patients and society. Thus, we need to stratify the risk and prevent readmission. We aimed to investigate risk factors associated with 30-day readmission and examine the impact of length of hospital stay (LOS) on 30-day readmission. Using the Diagnosis-Procedure-Combination database from April 2018 to March 2021, we conducted multiple logistic regression to investigate risk factors with 30-day readmission. Also, we conducted subgroup analysis in the short LOS group. To examine the association between LOS and 30-day readmission, we performed propensity score matching between the short and middle LOS groups. As a result, we categorized 10,283 patients and 169,842 patients into the readmission group and the no-readmission group. We identified the following factors as the risk of readmission: short LOS, female, smoking, older age, lower body mass index, lower barthel index, artificial ventilator, beta-blockers, thiazides, tolvaptan, loop diuretics, carperitides, class Ⅲ antiarrhythmic agents, myocardial infarction, diabetes, renal disease, atrial fibrillation, dilated cardiomyopathy, and discharge to home. As a subgroup analysis in the short LOS group, we revealed that the short LOS group risk factors differed from overall. After propensity score matching in the short LOS group and middle LOS group, 37,199 pairs were matched, and we revealed that shorter LOS increases the risk of readmission. These results demonstrated that shortened LOS increases 30-day readmission, and risk factors are unique to each LOS. We suggest stratifying the readmission risk and being careful with early discharge.

Mechanical and oral antibiotics bowel preparation for elective rectal cancer surgery: A propensity score matching analysis using a nationwide inpatient database in Japan

Aim

The best bowel preparation method for rectal surgery remains controversial. In this study we compared the efficacy and safety of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) alone and MOABP (MBP combined with oral antibiotic bowel preparation [OABP]) for rectal cancer surgery.

Methods

In this retrospective study we analyzed data from the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) database on 37 291 patients who had undergone low anterior resection for rectal cancer from 2014 to 2017. Propensity score matching analysis was used to compare postoperative outcomes between MBP alone and MOABP.

Results

A total of 37 291 patients were divided into four groups: MBP alone: 77.7%, no bowel preparation (NBP): 16.9%, MOABP: 4.7%, and OABP alone: 0.7%. In propensity score matching analysis with 1756 pairs, anastomotic leakage (4.84% vs 7.86%, P < 0.001), small bowel obstruction (1.54% vs 3.08%, P = 0.002) and reoperation (3.76% vs 5.98%, P = 0.002) were less in the MOABP group than in the MBP group. The mean duration of postoperative antibiotics medication was shorter in the MOABP group (5.2 d vs 7.5 d, P < 0.001) than in the MBP group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of Clostridium difficile (CD) colitis (0.40% vs 0.68%, P = 0.250) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colitis (0.11% vs 0.17%, P = 0.654). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between the two groups (0.00% vs 0.11% respectively, P = 0.157).

Conclusion

MOABP for rectal surgery is associated with a decreased incidence of postoperative complications without increasing the incidence of CD colitis and MRSA colitis.

Lower socioeconomic status is associated with increased co-morbidity burden and independently associated with time to surgery, length of hospitalisation, and readmission rates of hip fracture patients

This study examines the relationship between socioeconomic status, comorbidities, and clinical outcomes of hip fracture patients. Lower socioeconomic status is not only associated with poorer comorbidities but is also independently impacting surgical access and outcomes. This can be considered a "double setback" in the management of hip fractures.

PURPOSE

The effect of socioeconomic status on hip fracture outcomes remains controversial. We examine the relationship between SES and patient comorbidity, care access, and clinical outcomes of surgically managed hip fracture patients.

METHODS

Using healthcare payor status as a surrogate for SES, patients operated for fragility hip fractures between 2013 and 2016 were dichotomised based on payor status, namely private healthcare (PRIV) versus subsidised healthcare (SUB). PRIV patients were compared with SUB patients in terms of demographic data, ASA scores, co-morbidity burden (Charlson comorbidity index, CCI), time to surgery, length of acute hospitalisation, and 90-day readmission rates.

RESULTS

A total of 145 patients in group PRIV and 1146 patients in group SUB were included. SUB patients had a higher mean Charlson Co-morbidity Index (CCI) (p = 0.01), a longer length of hospitalisation (p = 0.001), an increased delay in surgery (p = 0.005), and higher 90-day readmission rates (p = 0.013). Lower SES (p = 0.01), older age (p = 0.01), higher CCI (p &lt; 0.01), and a higher American Society of Anaesthesiologists score (ASA) (p = 0.03) were predictive of time to surgery. Lower SES (p = 0.02) and higher CCI (p &lt; 0.001) were predictive of the length of hospitalisation. Lower SES (p = 0.04) and higher CCI (p &lt; 0.001) were predictive of 90-day readmission rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Low SES is associated with higher CCI in surgically treated hip fracture patients. However, it is independently associated with slower access to surgery, a longer hospital stay, and higher readmission rates. Hence, lower SES, with its associated higher CCI and independent impact on surgical access and outcomes, can be considered a "double setback" in the management of fragility hip fractures.

History and Profile of Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC): Development of a Real Data Collection System for Acute Inpatient Care in Japan

DPC, which is an acronym for “Diagnosis Procedure Combination,” is a patient classification method developed in Japan for inpatients in the acute phase of illness. It was developed as a measuring tool intended to make acute inpatient care transparent, aiming at standardization of Japanese medical care, as well as evaluation and improvement of its quality. Subsequently, this classification method came to be used in the Japanese medical service reimbursement system for acute inpatient care and appropriate allocation of medical resources. Furthermore, it has recently contributed to the development and maintenance of an appropriate medical care provision system at a regional level, which is accomplished based on DPC data used for patient classification. In this paper, we first provide an overview of DPC. Next, we will look back at over 15 years of DPC history; in particular, we will explore how DPC has been refined to become an appropriate medical service reimbursement system. Finally, we will introduce an outline of DPC-related research, starting with research using DPC data.

Disentangling the contribution of hospitals and municipalities for understanding patient level differences in one-year mortality risk after hip-fracture: A cross-classified multilevel analysis in Sweden

Background

One-year mortality after hip-fracture is a widely used outcome measure when comparing hospital care performance. However, traditional analyses do not explicitly consider the referral of patients to municipality care after just a few days of hospitalization. Furthermore, traditional analyses investigates hospital (or municipality) variation in patient outcomes in isolation rather than as a component of the underlying patient variation. We therefore aimed to extend the traditional approach to simultaneously estimate both case-mix adjusted hospital and municipality comparisons in order to disentangle the amount of the total patient variation in clinical outcomes that was attributable to the hospital and municipality level, respectively.

Methods

We determined 1-year mortality risk in patients aged 65 or above with hip fractures registered in Sweden between 2011 and 2014. We performed cross-classified multilevel analysis with 54,999 patients nested within 54 hospitals and 290 municipalities. We adjusted for individual demographic, socioeconomic and clinical characteristics. To quantify the size of the hospital and municipality variation we calculated the variance partition coefficient (VPC) and the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC).

Results

The overall 1-year mortality rate was 25.1%. The case-mix adjusted rates varied from 21.7% to 26.5% for the 54 hospitals, and from 18.9% to 29.5% for the 290 municipalities. The VPC was just 0.2% for the hospital and just 0.1% for the municipality level. Patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were strong predictors of 1-year mortality (AUC = 0.716), but adding the hospital and municipality levels in the cross-classified model had a minor influence (AUC = 0.718).

Conclusions

Overall in Sweden, one-year mortality after hip-fracture is rather high. However, only a minor part of the patient variation is explained by the hospital and municipality levels. Therefore, a possible intervention should be nation-wide rather than directed to specific hospitals or municipalities.

Is there disparity between regions and facilities in surgical resident training in Japan? Insights from a national survey

PURPOSE

This study sought to assess the disparity between regions and facilities in surgical resident training in Japan via a national level needs-assessment.

METHODS

A survey was sent to all 909 graduating residents of 2016. Residents trained in the six prefectures with a population of 7 million or more were included in the large prefecture (LP) group. Residents trained in the other 41 prefectures were included in the small prefecture (SP) group. Each group was further divided into a university hospital (UH) group and a non-university hospital (NUH) group.

RESULTS

The response rate was 56.3% (n = 512). Excluding nine residents who did not report their prefectures and facilities, surveys from 503 residents were analyzed. The UH group received significantly more years of training. In the SP and UH groups, there were significantly fewer residents who had performed 150 procedures or more under general anesthesia in comparison to the LP and NUH groups, respectively. Self-assessed competencies for several procedures were significantly lower in the SP and UH groups.

CONCLUSION

Disparity in surgical resident training was found between regions and facilities in Japan. The surgical residency curriculum in Japan could be improved to address this problem.

Open colectomy vs. laparoscopic colectomy in Japan: a retrospective study using real-world data from the diagnosis procedure combination database

PURPOSE

To compare the short-term outcomes of conventional open colectomy with those of laparoscopic colectomy for colon cancer.

METHODS

We retrieved data between January 2014 and March 2016 from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. A total of 69,418 patients who underwent colectomy for colon cancer were analyzed from among 15,901,766 cases of colorectal cancer. We applied a multilevel logistic regression model using a 2-level structure of individuals nested from 1065 hospitals.

RESULTS

A total of 22,440 open colectomy and 46,978 laparoscopic colectomy procedures were performed. The in-hospital mortality rate was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (0.28% vs. 0.06%, odds ratio [OR] 0.40, p < 0.001). Similarly, the 30-day postoperative mortality rate (0.14% vs. 0.03%, OR 0.47, p = 0.019) and surgical morbidity rate (43.0% vs. 25.3%, OR 0.47, p < 0.001) were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group. The postoperative length of stay was significantly longer in the open group (mean difference - 5.6 days, p < 0.001) than in the open group. The admission cost was significantly greater in the open group than in the laparoscopic group (mean difference - 95,080 yen, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colectomy is safe and effective in the short term.