3.8 Article

Etiological Role of Diet in 30-Day Readmissions for Heart Failure: Implications for Reducing Heart Failure-Associated Costs via Culinary Medicine

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LIFESTYLE MEDICINE
卷 14, 期 4, 页码 351-360

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1559827619861933

关键词

heart failure; cooking; nutrition therapy; patient readmission; lifestyle

资金

  1. Goldring Family Foundation
  2. Woldenberg Family Foundation
  3. Humana Foundation
  4. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation - National Institute of Health [5TL1TR001418]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Reducing the under-30-day readmission for heart failure (HF) patients is a modifiable quality-of-care measure, yet the role of diet in HF readmissions and cost-effective HF care remain ill-defined. Methods. Medical chart review was conducted to determine cause(s) for HF treatment failure. Randomized controlled trial-backed machine learning models were employed to assess the relationship of culinary medicine education with HF 30-day readmission rate and cost. Results. Of 1031 HF admissions, 130 occurred within 30 days of discharge (12.61%.) Nearly two-thirds of individuals were male (64.02%), while the mean age and median length of stay were 64.33 +/- 14.02 and 2, respectively. Medication noncompliance (34.62%) was the most common etiology for 30-day readmissions, followed by dietary noncompliance (16.92%), comorbidity (16.92%), a combination of dietary and medication noncompliance (10%), HF exacerbation (10%), iatrogenic (10%), and drug abuse (1.54%). Medication noncompliance contributed to the highest gross charge by readmission, costing a total of $1 802 096. Compared with traditional care, culinary medicine education for HF patients would prevent 93 HF readmissions and save $3.9 million in an estimated 4-year period. Conclusion. Though pharmacological treatment remains a focal point of HF management, diet-based approaches may improve tertiary HF prevention and reduce HF-associated health care expenditures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据