Objectives Hospital discharges to post-acute care (PAC) facilities have increased rapidly. This increase may lead to more hospital readmissions from PAC facilities, which are common and poorly understood. We sought to determine the risk factors and timing for hospital readmission from PAC facilities and evaluate the impact of readmission on patient outcomes. Design Retrospective analysis of Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) from 2003–2009. Setting The MCBS is a nationally-representative survey of beneficiaries matched with claims data. Participants Community-dwelling beneficiaries who were hospitalized and discharged to a PAC facility for rehabilitation. Intervention/Exposure Potential readmission risk factors included patient demographics, health utilization, active medical conditions at time of PAC admission, and PAC characteristics. Measurements Hospital readmission during the PAC stay, return to community residence, and all-cause mortality. Results Of 3246 acute hospitalizations followed by PAC facility stays, 739 (22.8%) included at least 1 hospital readmission. The strongest risk factors for readmission included impaired functional status (HR 4.78, 95% CI 3.21–7.10), markers of increased acuity such as need for intravenous medications in PAC (1.63, 1.39–1.92), and for-profit PAC ownership (1.43, 1.21–1.69). Readmitted patients had a higher mortality rate at both 30 days (18.9 vs. 8.6%, p<0.001) and 100 days (39.9 vs. 14.5%, p<0.001) even after adjusting for age, comorbidities, and prior health care utilization (30 days: OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.60–2.54; 100 days: OR 3.79, 95% CI 3.13–4.59). Conclusions Hospital readmission from PAC facilities is common and associated with a high mortality rate. Readmission risk factors may signify inadequate transitional care processes or a mismatch between patient needs and PAC resources.

Integrating MI-based smoking cessation treatment into PTSD home telehealth is an effective method to help Veterans with PTSD quit smoking. Further research is needed to understand how to optimize MI integration into home telehealth to achieve sustained smoking cessation rates.

MFHs served a distinct subset of veterans with levels of comorbidity and frailty similar to those of veterans cared for in CLCs and CNHs at costs that were comparable to or lower than those of the VHA. Propensity-matched comparisons will be necessary to confirm these findings.

BACKGROUND New post‐discharge strategies to reduce adverse events are needed. OBJECTIVE To determine whether follow‐up in a hospitalist‐run post‐discharge clinic (PDC) decreases post‐discharge adverse events when compared to follow‐up in a primary care clinic (PCP) or urgent care clinic (UC). DESIGN Retrospective cohort study using propensity scoring in multivariate analysis. PATIENTS Consecutive Veterans discharged home after a nonscheduled admission seen in PDC, UC, or PCP within 30 days of discharge. INTERVENTIONS Recently discharged patients are seen by housestaff who cared for them during the index admission and staffed with a rotating hospitalist in PDC; UC and PCP patients are seen by housestaff or attending ambulatory physicians. MAIN MEASURES The primary outcome was a composite of hospital readmissions, Emergency Department visits, and mortality 30 days after discharge. KEY RESULTS 5085 patients met criteria; 538 followed up in PDC (10.6%), 1848 with their PCP (36.3%), and 2699 in UC (53.1%). Patients following up in PDC were older and had a higher comorbidity burden. ICU exposure was similar between groups. Patients seen in PDC had shorter length of stay (LOS) (PDC, 3.8 days, UC, 5.0 days, PCP, 6.2 days; p = 0.04) and time to first post‐discharge visit (PDC, 5.0 days, UC, 9.4 days, PCP, 13.7 days; p < 0.01). There were no differences between groups in the primary outcome in unadjusted or propensity‐adjusted multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS Patients seen in a hospitalist‐run PDC had similar 30‐day post‐discharge adverse outcome rates despite a 2.4‐day shorter LOS compared to patients seen by their PCP. Prospective testing of PDCs is warranted. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2014;9:7–12. © 2013 Society of Hospital Medicine

Personal, clinical, and structural challenges face care providers for veterans who are homeless at EOL. Deeper understanding of these challenges will require qualitative study of homeless veterans and care providers.