Unplanned hospital readmission is a high-priority quality measure and target for cost reduction. Patients with diabetes are at higher risk of readmission than patients without diabetes. We previously presented results of a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an intervention designed to reduce readmission risk (the Diabetes Transition of Hospital Care [DiaTOHC] program) with outcomes assessed 30 days after hospital discharge. Here we present secondary outcomes assessed 90 days after discharge. Patients predicted to be high risk (>=27%) for readmission based on a validated readmission risk tool (DERRITM) were randomized 1:1 to the intervention (INT) or usual care (UC). The intervention consisted of inpatient diabetes education, coordination of care, post-discharge support by a nurse practitioner, adjustment of diabetes therapy, and weekly phone calls for 30 days after discharge. There were 45 INT and 46 UC patients randomized and analyzed by intention-to-treat. Twenty-one INT and 23 UC patients had a readmission (46.7% vs. 50%) while 25 INT and 27 UC patients had a readmission or Emergency Department (ED) visit (55.6% vs. 58.7%). The ratio of the mean estimated cost of readmissions, ED visits, and the intervention in the INT group was 0.51 (0.25-1.02)95%CL the cost of readmissions and ED visits in the UC group. Among the 69 patients with an admission A1C >7%, 14 INT and 17 UC patients had a readmission (41.2% vs. 48.6%), and 18 INT and 21 UC patients had a readmission or ED visit (52.9% vs. 60.0%), yielding relative risk reductions of 15.2% and 11.8%. The INT:UC group ratio of the mean estimated cost was 0.50 (0.22-1.12)95%CL. No differences were statistically significant in this pilot study. The DiaTOHC intervention may modestly reduce readmission risk and cut costs by half within 90 days after discharge among patients with an admission A1C >7%. This merits further investigation in a larger RCT. Disclosure D.J. Rubin: None. S. Watts: None. A. Deak: None. C. Vaz: None. S. Tanner: None. D. Recco: None. M. Tivon: None. F.R. Dillard: None. E. Brzana: None. K.E. Joyce: None. A. Karunakaran: None. A. Iwamaye: None. E. Miller: None. C. Mathai: None. N. Kondamuri: None. B.S. Albury: None. S. Allen: None. M.D. Naylor: None. S. Golden: None. J. Wu: None. Funding National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K23DK102963)
Objective To compare patients with DKA, hyperglycaemic hyperosmolar syndrome (HHS), or mixed DKA-HHS and COVID-19 [COVID (+)] to COVID-19-negative (−) [COVID (−)] patients with DKA/HHS from a low-income, racially/ethnically diverse catchment area. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted with patients admitted to an urban academic medical center between 1 March and 30 July 2020. Eligible patients met lab criteria for either DKA or HHS. Mixed DKA-HHS was defined as meeting all criteria for either DKA or HHS with at least 1 criterion for the other diagnosis. Results A total of 82 participants were stratified by COVID-19 status and type of hyperglycaemic crisis [26 COVID (+) and 56 COVID (−)]. A majority were either Black or Hispanic. Compared with COVID (−) patients, COVID (+) patients were older, more Hispanic and more likely to have type 2 diabetes (T2D, 73% vs 48%, p < .01). COVID(+) patients had a higher mean pH (7.25 ± 0.10 vs 7.16 ± 0.16, p < .01) and lower anion gap (18.7 ± 5.7 vs 22.7 ± 6.9, p = .01) than COVID (−) patients. COVID (+) patients were given less intravenous fluids in the first 24 h (2.8 ± 1.9 vs 4.2 ± 2.4 L, p = .01) and were more likely to receive glucocorticoids (95% vs. 11%, p < .01). COVID (+) patients may have taken longer to resolve their hyperglycaemic crisis (53.3 ± 64.8 vs 28.8 ± 27.5 h, p = .09) and may have experienced more hypoglycaemia <3.9 mmol/L (35% vs 19%, p = .09). COVID (+) patients had a higher length of hospital stay (LOS, 14.8 ± 14.9 vs 6.5 ± 6.0 days, p = .01) and in-hospital mortality (27% vs 7%, p = .02). Discussion Compared with COVID (−) patients, COVID (+) patients with DKA/HHS are more likely to have T2D. Despite less severe metabolic acidosis, COVID (+) patients may require more time to resolve the hyperglycaemic crisis and experience more hypoglycaemia while suffering greater LOS and risk of mortality. Larger studies are needed to examine whether differences in management between COVID (+) and (−) patients affect outcomes with DKA/HHS.
Hospital readmission within 30 days of discharge (30-day readmission) is a high-priority quality measure and cost target. The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility and efficacy of the Diabetes Transition of Hospital Care (DiaTOHC) Program on readmission risk in high-risk adults with diabetes. This was a non-blinded pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared usual care (UC) to DiaTOHC at a safety-net hospital. The primary outcome was all-cause 30-day readmission. Between 16 October 2017 and 30 May 2019, 93 patients were randomized. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, 14 (31.1%) of 45 DiaTOHC subjects and 15 (32.6%) of 46 UC subjects had a 30-day readmission, while 35.6% DiaTOHC and 39.1% UC subjects had a 30-day readmission or ED visit. The Intervention–UC cost ratio was 0.33 (0.13–0.79) 95%CI. At least 93% of subjects were satisfied with key intervention components. Among the 69 subjects with baseline HbA1c >7.0% (53 mmol/mol), 30-day readmission rates were 23.5% (DiaTOHC) and 31.4% (UC) and composite 30-day readmission/ED visit rates were 26.5% (DiaTOHC) and 40.0% (UC). In this subgroup, the Intervention–UC cost ratio was 0.21 (0.08–0.58) 95%CI. The DiaTOHC Program may be feasible and may decrease combined 30-day readmission/ED visit risk as well as healthcare costs among patients with HbA1c levels >7.0% (53 mmol/mol).
No abstract
Hospital readmission within 30 days of discharge (30-day readmission) is a high-priority quality measure and cost target. The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility and efficacy of the Diabetes Transition of Hospital Care (DiaTOHC) Program on readmission risk in high-risk adults with diabetes. This was a non-blinded pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared usual care (UC) to DiaTOHC at a safety-net hospital. The primary outcome was all-cause 30-day readmission. Between 10/16/2017 and 05/30/2019, 115 patients were randomized. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, 14 (31.1%) of 45 DiaTOHC subjects and 15 (32.6%) of 46 UC subjects had a 30-day readmission (p=0.88) while 35.6% DiaTOHC and 39.1% UC subjects had a 30-day readmission or ED visit (p=0.72). The Intervention:UC cost ratio was 0.33 (0.13-0.79)95%CI (p<0.01). Among the 69 subjects with baseline HbA1c >7.0% (53 mmol/mol), 30-day readmission rates were 23.5% (DiaTOHC) and 31.4% (UC, p=0.46) and composite 30-day readmission or ED visit rates were 26.5% (DiaTOHC) and 40.0% (UC, p=0.23). In this subgroup, the Intervention:UC cost ratio was 0.21 (0.08-0.58)95%CI (p=0.002). The DiaTOHC Program is feasible and may decrease combined 30-day readmission/ED visit risk as well as healthcare costs among patients with higher HbA1c levels.
Patients with diabetes (DM) are at higher risk of hospital readmission within 30 days of discharge (30dRe) than patients without DM. We previously reported quantitative results of a pilot RCT testing a novel intervention, the Diabetes Transition of Hospital Care (DiaTOHC) Program, designed to reduce readmission risk. The current study qualitatively assessed the intervention. We identified 115 hospitalized patients with DM at high risk for 30dRe using the Diabetes Early Readmission Risk Indicator (DERRITM). A total of 58 patients were randomized to the DiaTOHC Program, which consisted of program-specific inpatient DM education, coordination of care, telephonic post-discharge support by a nurse (Navigator), and an A1c-based algorithm to adjust DM therapy. At 5 to 12 weeks post-discharge, intervention patients were interviewed until saturation, resulting in 22 interviews. Study staff were also interviewed. We performed thematic analysis of the interviews. We identified 5 themes: (1) the intervention increased agency over DM self-management, (2) Navigator phone calls reinforced patient education and provided subjects with accountability, (3) it was difficult for patients to engage in DM education in the hospital, (4) perceived lack of control was associated with readmission, and (5) most patients were unable to correctly interpret their A1c level. Patients with baseline A1c >8% were less likely to review the educational materials, had more difficulty adhering to discharge instructions, and reported more extreme blood glucose levels. However, this subgroup also reported making more improvements in diet and medication adherence due to the intervention. The DiaTOHC intervention may instill a sense of personal responsibility for DM management after hospital discharge. Patients and staff valued the combination of education, care coordination, and follow up. All 3 components may interact synergistically with medical management to reduce readmission risk. Disclosure S. Tanner: None. E. Brzana: None. A. Deak: None. D. Recco: None. M. Tivon: None. F.R. Dillard: None. S. Watts: None. N. Kondamuri: None. B.S. Albury: None. S. Allen: None. A. Iwamaye: None. C. Vaz: None. D.J. Rubin: None. Funding National Institutes of Health (K23DK102963)
Transvenous embolization therapy is reported in a patient who developed a fistula from the innominate artery to the innominate vein as a complication of permanent cardiac pacemaker insertion. A transarterial approach at occlusion was unfavorable due to previous difficult catheterizations, and the patient's poor clinical condition precluded alternative operative intervention. The fistula was successfully closed by transvenous placement of a Fogarty nondetachable balloon catheter after coil and detectable balloon placement attempts were unsuccessful.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.