4.5 Article

The prevalence and long-term variation of hospital readmission for patients with diabetes in Tianjin, China: A cross-sectional study

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 96, 期 42, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007953

关键词

Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition; diabetes; hospital readmission; variation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundations of China [71373175]
  2. Ministry of Education Humanities and Social Science Planning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Little is known about hospital readmission for patients with diabetes in China. We aimed to assess the temporal pattern, risk factors, and variations of all-cause readmission among hospitalized patients with diabetes in Tianjin, China, from 2008 to 2013.The Tianjin Basic Medical Insurance Register System database was used to identify discharged patients with diabetes from 2008 to 2013. The influential factors and trends of rehospitalization were analyzed for 30-, 60- and 90-day predicted readmission rates. The Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition was used to explain the readmission variations between 2008 and 2013.The long stay-time at the index hospitalization is a shared risk factor for readmission at 30, 60, and 90 days each year. The 90-day predicted readmission rates were the highest for each year (all P<.001). The adjusted readmission rates generally decreased by year (all P<.001), except for at the 90-day interval, which decreased in 2010 and slightly increased in 2013 (from 7.47% in 2012 to 7.65% in 2013). If the patients had been readmitted to the hospital in 2013 and the only changes that had occurred since 2008 were observable characteristics, then the readmission rates would have decreased by 0.84%, 0.27%, and 0.18% at 30, 60, and 90 days, respectively. The potential policy changes decreased the readmission rates at 1.35%, 2.01%, and 1.04% for the 3 intervals, respectively.Identifying targeted factors for the decrease in readmission rates may help to control readmission, particularly for long-interval patients.

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

4.5
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