• 보건행정학회지
• /
• 제25권3호
• /
• pp.197-206
• /
• 2015

Background: The purpose of this study was to propose a method for developing a measure of hospital-wide all-cause risk-standardized readmissions using administrative claims data in Korea and to discuss further considerations in the refinement and implementation of the readmission measure. Methods: By adapting the methodology of the United States Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services for creating a 30-day readmission measure, we developed a 6-step approach for generating a comparable measure using Korean datasets. Using the 2010 Korean National Health Insurance (NHI) claims data as the development dataset, hierarchical regression models were fitted to calculate a hospital-wide all-cause risk-standardized readmission measure. Six regression models were fitted to calculate the readmission rates of six clinical condition groups, respectively and a single, weighted, overall readmission rate was calculated from the readmission rates of these subgroups. Lastly, the case mix differences among hospitals were risk-adjusted using patient-level comorbidity variables. The model was validated using the 2009 NHI claims data as the validation dataset. Results: The unadjusted, hospital-wide all-cause readmission rate was 13.37%, and the adjusted risk-standardized rate was 10.90%, varying by hospital type. The highest risk-standardized readmission rate was in hospitals (11.43%), followed by general hospitals (9.40%) and tertiary hospitals (7.04%). Conclusion: The newly developed, hospital-wide all-cause readmission measure can be used in quality and performance evaluations of hospitals in Korea. Needed are further methodological refinements of the readmission measures and also strategies to implement the measure as a hospital performance indicator.

• 보건행정학회지
• /
• 제26권2호
• /
• pp.148-152
• /
• 2016

The hospital readmission rate has been widely used as an indicator of the quality of hospital care in many countries. However, the transferrability of this indicator that has been developed in a different health care system can be questioned. We reviewed what should be considered when using the risk-standardized readmission rate (RSRR) as a generic quality indicator in the Korean setting. We addressed the relationship between RSRR and the quality of hospital care, methodological aspects of RSRR, and use of RSRR for external purposes. These issues can influence the validity of the readmission rate as a generic quality indicator. Therefore RSRR should be used with care and further studies are needed to enhance the validity of the readmission rate indicator.

• 한국의료질향상학회지
• /
• 제22권1호
• /
• pp.29-37
• /
• 2016

Readmission which reflects capacity to manage patients and general level of medical services has been known for one of the causes of medical expenditure due to inefficient service. Compared to disease-specific readmission, hospital wide readmission (HWR) is relatively easy to understand, and has merit to get over limitation of collateral medical services assessment; therefore, a growing interest in development and usage of readmission indicator as quality of care indicator focusing on all-disease is detected. In this study, we investigate current state of risk standardized readmission rate indicator used in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, and examine the considerations when using readmission rate as quality indicator in Korea. Differences in risk-adjustment methods were showed among countries. The United States do not control race not to hide socio-demographic factors on readmission. Canada shows differentiation compared to other countries about reflecting community factors. All three-countries utilize readmission rate as monitoring quality of care rather than incentives or penalty due to the fact that readmission rate could not represent the whole quality of hospital and has a limitation at controlling socio-economic factors. Therefore, for usage readmission rate as quality indicator in Korea, preparing readmission classification standard for Korean medical environment and additional methods for acquiring information by using discharge summary is need. Moreover, continued discussion with clinical specialists is needed for obtain clinical reliability and validity.