Nurse telehealth care improves clinical outcomes of antidepressant drug treatment and patient satisfaction and fits well within busy primary care settings.

Multiple factors contributed to potentially preventable readmissions in an integrated health care system with low baseline readmission rates. Reducing all-cause 30-day readmissions may require a comprehensive approach addressing these areas. Future quality improvement efforts and research should identify existing and new tactics that can best prevent readmissions by addressing missed opportunities we identified.

BackgroundIdentification of potentially preventable readmissions is typically accomplished through manual review or automated classification. Little is known about the concordance of these methods.MethodsWe manually reviewed 459 30-day, all-cause readmissions at 18 Kaiser Permanente Northern California hospitals, determining potential preventability through a four-step manual review process that included a chart review tool, interviews with patients, their families, and treating providers, and nurse reviewer and physician evaluation of findings and determination of preventability on a five-point scale. We reassessed the same readmissions with 3 M’s Potentially Preventable Readmission (PPR) software. We examined between-method agreement and the specificity and sensitivity of the PPR software using manual review as the reference.ResultsAutomated classification and manual review respectively identified 78% (358) and 47% (227) of readmissions as potentially preventable. Overall, the methods agreed about the preventability of 56% (258) of readmissions. Using manual review as the reference, the sensitivity of PPR was 85% and specificity was 28%.ConclusionsConcordance between methods was not high enough to replace manual review with automated classification as the primary method of identifying preventable 30-day, all-cause readmission for quality improvement purposes.

Reports in the end-of-life literature reveal that patients and health care professionals, including social workers, nurses, and physicians, avoid discussions about preparation for such care. End-of-life care discussion barriers include, but are not limited to, professionals feeling unprepared to have the discussions and patients' lack of readiness to discuss planning for this care. Another barrier is the lack of a structured framework to initiate these discussions, especially with clients with advanced illnesses who may not acknowledge that they are at high risk for needing end-of-life care in the future. In a controlled trial of an Advanced Illness Coordinated Care Program, social workers initiated end-of-life planning discussions using the Stages of Change model (SOC). This article describes how the social workers introduced end-of-life planning discussions using the SOC conceptual structure to illustrate the application of a conceptual framework for professionals working with advanced illness populations.

No abstract