Rationale: Approximately 20% of patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbations in the United States will be readmitted within 30 days. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has recently proposed to revise the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program to financially penalize hospitals with high all-cause 30-day rehospitalization rates after a hospitalization for COPD exacerbation on or after October 1, 2014.Objectives: To report the results of a systematic review of randomized clinical trials evaluating interventions to reduce the rehospitalizations after COPD exacerbations.Methods: Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched to identify relevant studies published between January 1966 and June 2013. Titles, abstracts, and, subsequently, full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Each study was appraised using predefined criteria.Measurements and Main Results: Among 913 titles and abstracts screened, 5 studies (1,393 participants) met eligibility criteria. All studies had a primary outcome of rehospitalization at 6 or 12 months. No study examined 30-day rehospitalization as the primary outcome. Each study tested a different set of interventions. Two studies (one conducted in Canada and one conducted in Spain and Belgium) showed a decrease in all-cause rehospitalization over 12 months in the intervention group versus comparator group (mean number of hospitalizations per patient, 1.0 vs. 1.8; P = 0.01; percent hospitalized, 45 vs. 67%; P = 0.028; respectively). The only study conducted in the United States found a greater than twofold higher risk of mortality in the intervention group (17 vs. 7%, P = 0.003) but no significant difference in rehospitalizations. It was unclear which set of interventions was effective or harmful. Conclusions:The evidence base is inadequate to recommend specific interventions to reduce rehospitalizations in this population and does not justify penalizing hospitals for high 30-day rehospitalization rates after COPD exacerbations.

Background Dyspnea is a common symptom in patients hospitalized with acute cardiopulmonary diseases. Routine assessment of dyspnea severity is recommended by clinical guidelines based on the evidence that patients are not treated consistently for dyspnea relief. Objective To evaluate attitudes and beliefs of hospitalists regarding the assessment and management of dyspnea. Design Cross-sectional survey Settings Nine hospitals in the United States. Measurements Survey questions assessed the following domains regarding dyspnea: importance in clinical care; potential benefits and challenges of implementing a standardized assessment; current approaches to assessment and how awareness of severity affects management. A five-point Likert scale was used to assess the respondent’s level of agreement; strongly agree and agree were combined into a single category. Results Of the 255 hospitalists invited to participate, 69.8% completed the survey; 77.0% agreed that dyspnea relief is an important goal when treating patients with cardiopulmonary conditions. Approximately 90% of respondents stated that awareness of dyspnea severity influences their decision to intensify treatment, to pursue additional diagnostic testing and the timing of discharge. 61.0% agreed that standardized assessment of dyspnea should be part of the vital signs and 64.6% that awareness of dyspnea severity influences their decision to prescribe opioids. Hospitalists who appreciated the importance of dyspnea in clinical practice were more likely to support the implementation of a standardized scale. Conclusions Most hospitalists believe that routine assessment of dyspnea severity would enhance their clinical decision-making and patient care. Measurement and documentation of dyspnea severity may represent an opportunity to improve dyspnea management.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract