Patient ReadmissionNCT05765903
UM CRMC RecuR Score Pilot
A study testing Enhanced Care in people with Patient Readmission and Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, run by University of Maryland, Baltimore at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
This study will look to implement a plan for enhanced transitional care for patients at high risk of unplanned hospital readmission in hopes of reducing their risk for readmission in the first 30 days post discharge from an inpatient encounter. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Patient Readmission, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Heart Failure
- What is being tested?
- Enhanced Care
- Type of treatment
- Pill or oral medicine
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 0 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 31 Mar 2024to Sep 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patient is in Observation (and is expected to be admitted) or is admitted as an Inpatient Encounter. Consider eligible patients in any unit except Emergency Department.
- Patient has RecuR Score available 24 hours after start of data collection in EHR.
- Patient is at least 18 years of age.
- Participant is willing and able to provide informed consent for the trial.
- Participant has a RecuR Score greater than or equal to 3; OR Participant has a RecuR Score greater than or equal to 2 and length of stay greater than 10 days; OR Participant has a RecuR Score greater than or equal to 2 with admitting diagnosis of COPD, CHF, Diabetes with elevated HbA1c, Hypertension, or pneumonia; OR Participant has any RecuR Score AND current admission is a readmission where participant was not enrolled during any prior admission.
Who cannot join
- Patients who were enrolled in the pilot during an earlier inpatient hospital encounter.
- Patients with encounters having length of stay less than 48 hours or greater than 30 days.
- Patients who are not expected to be discharged to "home", e.g., patients who were admitted from skilled nursing facility (SNF) and are expected to be discharged to SNF. Use Admission Source (or disposition field) as an indicator of who may not be discharged home.
- Patients with an admission diagnosis of Septicemia.
- Patients who lack capacity to sign the consent and participate in the study.
- Patients who are not fluent English.
Show all 10Show fewer
- Patients who are already receiving home health care.
- Patients who the nursing team believes will require home health care post- hospitalization.
- Post-Hoc Exclusion Criteria
- Patients who leave against medical advice.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
University of Maryland Charles Regional Medical Center
La Plata, Maryland, 20646
About this study
Official title: Readmission Risk Score (RecuR Score) Pilot at The University of Maryland Charles Regional Medical Center (UM CRMC)
This study will look to implement a plan for enhanced transitional care for patients at high risk of unplanned hospital readmission in hopes of reducing their risk for readmission in the first 30 days post discharge from an inpatient encounter. Hospital readmissions are an undesirable occurrence that can increase cost for hospitals, and can cause further negative outcomes for patients. Identifying factors that increase a patient's chances of being readmitted to the hospital, as well as developing an intervention to effectively reduce this risk, has historically been challenging.
Our new method uses a combination of common features such as diagnosis and length of hospital stay, with a novel artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm, the RecuR Score model developed by the University of Maryland Medical System, that identifies patients at the highest risk of having an unplanned hospital readmission. Participants identified as higher risk will then be enrolled into our pilot where they will be randomized to receive either the standard of care treatment or an enhanced protocol that includes additional disease education, coordination of home health services, and a focus on their readmission during existing multidisciplinary team huddles.
The main goal of this study is to reduce unplanned hospital readmission within 30 days of initial discharge, in those most at risk of being readmitted, using the aforementioned novel methods for identifying these participants and a transitional care intervention. This success of this goal will be analyzed across different readmission risk levels in the study population. Secondary goals of this study include reducing unplanned hospital readmission within 90 days, reducing 30-day post-discharge mortality, and reducing 30- and 90-day emergency department (ED) usage after an initial hospitalization.
Read the detailed description
- BACKGROUND Hospital readmission is an adverse health outcome that incurs significant cost to the healthcare ecosystem. While undesired, unplanned hospital readmission within 30 days of discharge is not uncommon. To improve care quality and reduce unnecessary healthcare costs, in 2013, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) launched the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) as part of the Value Based Purchasing (VBP) program to encourage better discharge care coordination. Under the HRRP program, hospitals with high readmission rate incur a payment reduction of up to 3 percent. Since the launch of the HRRP program, reducing hospital readmissions has elevated to a strategic priority of hospitals. Best practices to effectively reduce hospital readmissions while maintaining a healthy operating margin are sought after by hospitals across the country. Studies on most optimal intervention structure and intensity have yet to identify a single effective strategy, and the effectiveness and external validity of interventions in the literature remains uncertain. Across all patients at University of Maryland Charles Regional Medical Center (UM CRMC) between January 2019 and January 2022, the unplanned hospital readmission rate was 11% and this value is as high as 30% across certain highest risk groups. UM CRMC has implemented a Transitional Care Program with Nurse Navigators since 2011 that focuses on patients that are typically known to have a higher rate of readmission (patients whose primary reason for admission is Diabetes, Congestive Heart Failure [CHF], Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease [COPD] and Hypertension). Despite genuine efforts to manage these patients and provide additional support to these patients prior to discharge and post-discharge, the readmission rate at UM CRMC has remained relatively unchanged over the past five years between 7-15% (mean 11% ± 1.5%) with no sustained year-over-year improvement. At the University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS), we have developed an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered risk score called the RecuR Score (Readmission Risk Score). The RecuR Score estimates the risk of 30-day unplanned readmission for patients both in-house and during the 30 days after inpatient discharge. Patients are grouped in one of five score levels (1-5), where a RecuR Score of 1 indicates the lowest risk of readmission and a RecuR Score of 5 indicates the highest risk of readmission. This risk score is retrained monthly using data from patients with encounters at UMMS hospitals. The target population is inpatients, currently in-house non-inpatients (Emergency Department, Observation Unit) who might become inpatients, and previous inpatients within 30 days of discharge. The score uses data from the UMMS electronic health record system (EHR), CRISP (Chesapeake Regional Information System for our Patients - the state-designated Health Information Exchange for Maryland), commercial and non-commercial claims, and the U.S. Census Bureau. A comparison of the performance of the RecuR Score compared to LACE and HOSPITAL on the same patients showed that the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve, sometimes known as the Area Under the Curve (AUC), of the RecuR Score significantly outperforms the other two metrics, even prior to discharge. While LACE is only available at discharge, HOSPITAL is described as most accurate at discharge, and even then, it is outperformed by the RecuR Score at 48 hours post-arrival when the RecuR Score is not at its best The literature review shows that efforts to reduce readmission rates are not consistently effective, and it has been difficult to extract a set of interventions that reliably reduces readmissions. Our team theorizes that efforts to reduce readmission rates are not effective because the patients are not adequately stratified into risk categories resulting in interventions not being used on the patients who will benefit the most from the interventions. This pilot addresses this issue by identifying patients at higher risk of readmission using the RecuR Score. The RecuR Score accurately identifies patients at high risk of readmission with an area under the ROC curve of 0.83. This higher risk population (limited to selected principal diagnoses and other inclusion and exclusion criteria) has a higher readmission rate (19.4%) than the hospital's overall readmission rate (11%), which results in a greater opportunity to reduce the readmission rate for the target population. To address the issue of identifying the most effective interventions, our team also theorizes that the interventions used are not robust, meaning that the impact of the intervention is insufficient. For example, most readmission intervention programs focus on phone calls post-discharge without considering a more complete view of the patient's situation. To address this issue, this pilot is implementing more complex interventions such as additional educational materials, a focus on the patient's readmission risk during interdisciplinary medical team huddles/care transition rounds, and multiple home healthcare programs that cover a broad spectrum of potential interventions. The expectation is that by accurately identifying the higher risk patients and having a broader view of the patients' situation with multiple interventions, we can reduce the 30-day unplanned readmission rate.
- STUDY OBJECTIVES Offering more complex interventions that are higher intensity than those currently universally provided at UM CRMC. By targeting patients who are at a higher risk of readmission using a novel AI-based risk score, the RecuR Score, resources can be best allocated to those who need them most. These more intense interventions include additional educational materials, emphasis on a patient's readmission risk during their multidisciplinary team huddle, and home health services. For the study, we will only be targeting patients with a high readmission risk (based on the patient's RecuR Score), to test the efficacy of the standardized use of these resources. The first primary hypothesis for this study is that using a novel UMMS algorithm (RecuR Score) to identify patients at a higher risk of unplanned hospital readmission combined with enhanced pre-discharge and follow-up care interventions including, additional educational material about their health, a focus on their readmission risk during interdisciplinary team huddles, and home health care, can reduce 30-day unplanned hospital readmissions in this high-risk group by 30%. The second primary hypothesis in this fallback design trial, is that using the aforementioned enhanced interventions, there will be a 30% reduction of unplanned hospital readmission risk in patients determined to be a medium-high risk of readmission (RecuR Score level 2 or 3).
- METHODS This is a parallel-group, two-arm, prospective, randomized, non-blinded, fallback design, controlled superiority study of the impact of a new transitional care model for patients determined to be at higher risk of 30-day unplanned hospital readmission conducted at UM CRMC. UM CRMC is an approximately 100-bed community hospital located in Charles County, Maryland and is part of the University of Maryland Medical System. Patients will be 1:1 (equally) randomized to Arm 1 or Arm 2 using a stratified randomization method with stratification by RecuR Score. Participants assigned to Arm 1 will receive the activities in Intervention "A" and the participants assigned to Arm 2 will receive the activities in Intervention "A" AND the activities in Intervention "B." As there is an apparent difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2, neither the patients nor providers will be blinded to the study assignment. Informed consent will be obtained and documented for this study. The target patient population is admitted patients (inpatients) at UM CRMC with a high readmission risk (RecuR Score) and/or specific admission diagnoses that are amenable to peri- and post-discharge interventions, where the goal is to reduce the readmission rate of this high-risk population. This study will use a fallback design with two primary endpoints. The first sequential primary endpoint is 30-day post-discharge unplanned hospital readmission in the overall study population. The second sequential primary endpoint is 30-day post-discharge unplanned hospital readmission in the medium-high risk population (RecuR Score 2 \& 3). The significance level (0.05) will be divided evenly between the two primary endpoints, for a significance level of 0.025 for the first primary endpoint and a reserved 0.025 significance level for the second primary endpoint.
- DATA COLLECTION The patient's Electronic Health Record (EHR) from Epic will be the main source of information about the patient's demographics, admission diagnoses, length of stay, and outcomes data like subsequent hospital encounters in the 90 days post-discharge. The CRISP ("Chesapeake Regional Information System for our Patients") Admission Discharge Transfer (ADT) tool is the source that provides what hospital encounters the enrolled patients have post-discharge if they do not occur at UMMS facilities.
- DATA ANALYSIS As this is a fallback method design, we will first test the first primary endpoint against a 0.025 significance level. If the first test shows statistical significance, we will be able to add the unused alpha level from the first test to the reserved alpha level, for significance level of 0.05 to test the second primary endpoint. If this test fails to show statistical significance, we will proceed and test the second primary endpoint at the reserved 0.025 significance level.
Patient characteristics will be summarized and compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2 for both the overall and RecuR Score 2 and 3 populations. Most results will be compared using a test of difference for two proportions. If the data are multi-categoric, the Mantel-Haenszel method will be used for comparisons. If an event is rare (<5%), the Fisher exact test will be used. Any continuous data will be compared using a t-test or Wilcoxon Rank Sum statistic. If data are greatly skewed, additional methods might be needed. These analyses will be used to present baseline and background characteristics, demonstrating that the analysis is balanced and representative of the general population, or pointing to areas where primary analyses might need to be adjusted to account for imbalances.
All analyses of results for primary and secondary endpoints will be based on the Intent-to-Treat principle, where results are computed based on the Arm that the patient was randomized to rather than which interventions they actually received. All comparisons will be done for both the overall and medium-high risk study populations, assuming the study continues to the second primary endpoint. Comparison of hospital readmission will be performed using either z-tests, or Fischer's Exact test, depending on the rarity of the outcome of interest. If imbalances are noted in the baseline characteristics, adjusted regression models will be tested where indicated. Subgroup analysis will be performed, including a specific focus on differing readmission rates between the various RecuR Score risk levels.
- Conditions
- Patient Readmission, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Heart Failure, Diabetes Mellitus Poor Control, Hypertension, Pneumonia
- Being tested
- Standard of Care, Enhanced Care
- Keywords
- patient, unplanned, hospital, readmissions
- Medical subject headings
- Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Heart Failure, Hypertension, Pneumonia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Standard of CareOther
Also called University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS) Charles Regional Medical Center (CRMC) Appendix A.1. Transitional Care/Nurse Navigator Program, Policy Number: 9770-001
- Diagnosis education.
- Follow-appointment scheduling assistance.
- Offer resources in the community.
- Offer weekly follow-up calls for one month.
- Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) assessment.
Enhanced CareOther
- Additional educational training using computer tablet devices, such as iPads.
- Focus on readmission risk.
- Set-up Home Health Services (HHS), Mobile Integrated Healthcare (MIH) or Resources, Education and Access to Community Health (REACH).
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Arm 1: Intervention A | Active comparator | * Diagnosis education includes verbal 1:1 patient education by the Transitional Nurse Navigator (TNN) and a folder with Epic printed education and other handouts specific to that disease process.
* Follow-up appointment scheduling assistance, including transportation to the follow-up appointment. The Community Health Worker (CHW) or TNN will schedule the appointments for the PCP and other specialists within 1 week when available.
* Offer resources in the community post the 1:1 meeting with the patient to meet specific access to care challenges identified for that patient by the TNN or CHW.
* Provide weekly follow-up calls for one month by TNN or delegate.
* Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) assessment. Screenings by CHW regarding patients' SDOH and documentation in the EHR (Epic) of this SDOH assessment. If a patient demonstrates a need, a CHW will help identify and offer opportunities for the patient. Receives: Other: Standard of Care |
| Arm 2: Receives Intervention "A" and Intervention "B" | Experimental | * Additional educational training using iPads. Education using iPad and/or teach-back components to reinforce the individualized disease and medication specific education. iPads are programmed with patient education from "The Patient Channel." This visit will be completed by a TNN.
* Focus on readmission risk during Care Transition Rounds. Multi-disciplinary team conducts daily rounds to discuss patient. TNNs share the risk scores for the patients and discuss coordination of the patient receiving interventions and other resources suggested by team members.
* Home health care from Home Health Services (HHS), Mobile Integrated Healthcare (MIH) or Resources, Education and Access to Community Health (REACH). Involves home visits to the patient, environmental assessments, and medication reconciliation from a home health nurse. Duration and specifications of home health care depend on the patient's needs. Participants will be assigned based on program eligibility and availability. Receives: Other: Standard of Care; Other: Enhanced Care |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Number of overall participants with 30-day post-discharge hospital readmission
This is the first primary endpoint of this fallback design study. It measures the number of participants with a hospital readmission in the 30 days post-hospital discharge in the overall study population.
Measured: 30 days post-hospital discharge
Number of moderate-high risk participants with 30-day post-discharge hospital readmission
This is the second primary endpoint of this fallback design study. It measures the number of moderate-high risk participants, those having a RecuR Score of 2 or 3, with a hospital readmission in the 30 days post-hospital discharge.
Measured: 30 days post-hospital discharge
Secondary outcomes (5)
30 day post-discharge mortality
Number of participants with 30 day post-discharge mortality
Measured: 30 days post-hospital discharge
30 day post-discharge unplanned hospital readmission
Number of participants with 30 day post-discharge unplanned hospital readmission
Measured: 30 days post-hospital discharge
90-day post-discharge unplanned hospital readmission
Number of participants with 90 day post-discharge unplanned hospital readmission
Measured: 90 days post-hospital discharge
30-day post-discharge emergency department usage
Number of participants with 30 day post-discharge emergency department usage
Measured: 30 days post-hospital discharge
90-day post-discharge emergency department usage
Number of participants with 90 day post-discharge emergency department usage
Measured: 90 days post-hospital discharge
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted13 Mar 2023
- Study start31 Mar 2024 (estimated)
- Primary completionSep 2026 (estimated)
- Study completionSep 2026 (estimated)
Why it stopped: Significant protocol modifications needed for feasibility. This will require a version 2.
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (12)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Patient ReadmissionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- This is a two-arm interventional study where participants will be randomized to receive either the Standard of Care or Enhanced Care treatment. Participants in the Standard of Care arm will receive the Transitional Care protocol most commonly used for patients at the University of Maryland Charles Regional Medical Center (UM CRMC). Participants in the Enhanced Care arm will receive the interventions in the Standard of Care arm plus the additional protocols unique to Enhanced Care arm (Social Determinants of Health Wheel assessment in the University of Maryland Medical System electronic medical record, coordination of home health services, and additional diagnosis education). These arms are designed to ensure that participants receive the same high quality of care that they would have received before the study while also focusing on some added interventions from the enhanced care arm to help determine if these additional interventions help improve patient outcomes.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Maryland, Baltimore
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Stephen N. Davis, MBBS, University of Maryland, Baltimore
- Investigators
- Stephen N Davis, MBBS, Principal investigator, University of Maryland, Baltimore
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05765903
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- HP-00104036
- Status last verified
- Feb 2024
- First submitted
- 1 Mar 2023
- Last updated
- 15 Feb 2024
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8.
PubMed 3558716Damery S, Combes G. Evaluating the predictive strength of the LACE index in identifying patients at high risk of hospital readmission following an inpatient episode: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2017 Jul 13;7(7):e016921. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016921.
PubMed 28710226Dhalla IA, O'Brien T, Morra D, Thorpe KE, Wong BM, Mehta R, Frost DW, Abrams H, Ko F, Van Rooyen P, Bell CM, Gruneir A, Lewis GH, Daub S, Anderson GM, Hawker GA, Rochon PA, Laupacis A. Effect of a postdischarge virtual ward on readmission or death for high-risk patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014 Oct 1;312(13):1305-12. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.11492.
PubMed 25268437Donze JD, Williams MV, Robinson EJ, Zimlichman E, Aujesky D, Vasilevskis EE, Kripalani S, Metlay JP, Wallington T, Fletcher GS, Auerbach AD, Schnipper JL. International Validity of the HOSPITAL Score to Predict 30-Day Potentially Avoidable Hospital Readmissions. JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Apr;176(4):496-502. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.8462.
PubMed 26954698Hansen LO, Young RS, Hinami K, Leung A, Williams MV. Interventions to reduce 30-day rehospitalization: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):520-8. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00008.
PubMed 22007045Jenq GY, Doyle MM, Belton BM, Herrin J, Horwitz LI. Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Large-Scale Readmission Reduction Program. JAMA Intern Med. 2016 May 1;176(5):681-90. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.0833.
PubMed 27065180Kripalani S, Chen G, Ciampa P, Theobald C, Cao A, McBride M, Dittus RS, Speroff T. A transition care coordinator model reduces hospital readmissions and costs. Contemp Clin Trials. 2019 Jun;81:55-61. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2019.04.014. Epub 2019 Apr 25.
PubMed 31029692Leppin AL, Gionfriddo MR, Kessler M, Brito JP, Mair FS, Gallacher K, Wang Z, Erwin PJ, Sylvester T, Boehmer K, Ting HH, Murad MH, Shippee ND, Montori VM. Preventing 30-day hospital readmissions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Jul;174(7):1095-107. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1608.
PubMed 24820131Marafino BJ, Escobar GJ, Baiocchi MT, Liu VX, Plimier CC, Schuler A. Evaluation of an intervention targeted with predictive analytics to prevent readmissions in an integrated health system: observational study. BMJ. 2021 Aug 11;374:n1747. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1747.
PubMed 34380667McWilliams A, Roberge J, Anderson WE, Moore CG, Rossman W, Murphy S, McCall S, Brown R, Carpenter S, Rissmiller S, Furney S. Aiming to Improve Readmissions Through InteGrated Hospital Transitions (AIRTIGHT): a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Jan;34(1):58-64. doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4617-1. Epub 2018 Aug 14.
PubMed 30109585van Walraven C, Dhalla IA, Bell C, Etchells E, Stiell IG, Zarnke K, Austin PC, Forster AJ. Derivation and validation of an index to predict early death or unplanned readmission after discharge from hospital to the community. CMAJ. 2010 Apr 6;182(6):551-7. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.091117. Epub 2010 Mar 1.
PubMed 20194559Wang H, Robinson RD, Johnson C, Zenarosa NR, Jayswal RD, Keithley J, Delaney KA. Using the LACE index to predict hospital readmissions in congestive heart failure patients. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2014 Aug 7;14:97. doi: 10.1186/1471-2261-14-97.
PubMed 25099997
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 15 Feb 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Readmission Risk Score (RecuR Score) Pilot at The University of Maryland Charles Regional Medical Center (UM CRMC)
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05765903
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- HP-00104036
- Conditions
- Patient Readmission, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Heart Failure, Diabetes Mellitus Poor Control, Hypertension, Pneumonia
- Keywords
- patient, unplanned, hospital, readmissions
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- WithdrawnReason stopped: Significant protocol modifications needed for feasibility. This will require a version 2.
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Maryland, BaltimoreUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 31 Mar 2024 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Sep 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Sep 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 13 Mar 2023 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study will look to implement a plan for enhanced transitional care for patients at high risk of unplanned hospital readmission in hopes of reducing their risk for readmission in the first 30 days post discharge from an inpatient encounter. Hospital readmissions are an undesirable occurrence that can increase cost for hospitals, and can cause further negative outcomes for patients. Identifying factors that increase a patient's chances of being readmitted to the hospital, as well as developing an intervention to effectively reduce this risk, has historically been challenging.
Our new method uses a combination of common features such as diagnosis and length of hospital stay, with a novel artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm, the RecuR Score model developed by the University of Maryland Medical System, that identifies patients at the highest risk of having an unplanned hospital readmission. Participants identified as higher risk will then be enrolled into our pilot where they will be randomized to receive either the standard of care treatment or an enhanced protocol that includes additional disease education, coordination of home health services, and a focus on their readmission during existing multidisciplinary team huddles.
The main goal of this study is to reduce unplanned hospital readmission within 30 days of initial discharge, in those most at risk of being readmitted, using the aforementioned novel methods for identifying these participants and a transitional care intervention. This success of this goal will be analyzed across different readmission risk levels in the study population. Secondary goals of this study include reducing unplanned hospital readmission within 90 days, reducing 30-day post-discharge mortality, and reducing 30- and 90-day emergency department (ED) usage after an initial hospitalization.
Detailed description
- BACKGROUND Hospital readmission is an adverse health outcome that incurs significant cost to the healthcare ecosystem. While undesired, unplanned hospital readmission within 30 days of discharge is not uncommon. To improve care quality and reduce unnecessary healthcare costs, in 2013, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) launched the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) as part of the Value Based Purchasing (VBP) program to encourage better discharge care coordination. Under the HRRP program, hospitals with high readmission rate incur a payment reduction of up to 3 percent. Since the launch of the HRRP program, reducing hospital readmissions has elevated to a strategic priority of hospitals. Best practices to effectively reduce hospital readmissions while maintaining a healthy operating margin are sought after by hospitals across the country. Studies on most optimal intervention structure and intensity have yet to identify a single effective strategy, and the effectiveness and external validity of interventions in the literature remains uncertain. Across all patients at University of Maryland Charles Regional Medical Center (UM CRMC) between January 2019 and January 2022, the unplanned hospital readmission rate was 11% and this value is as high as 30% across certain highest risk groups. UM CRMC has implemented a Transitional Care Program with Nurse Navigators since 2011 that focuses on patients that are typically known to have a higher rate of readmission (patients whose primary reason for admission is Diabetes, Congestive Heart Failure [CHF], Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease [COPD] and Hypertension). Despite genuine efforts to manage these patients and provide additional support to these patients prior to discharge and post-discharge, the readmission rate at UM CRMC has remained relatively unchanged over the past five years between 7-15% (mean 11% ± 1.5%) with no sustained year-over-year improvement. At the University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS), we have developed an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered risk score called the RecuR Score (Readmission Risk Score). The RecuR Score estimates the risk of 30-day unplanned readmission for patients both in-house and during the 30 days after inpatient discharge. Patients are grouped in one of five score levels (1-5), where a RecuR Score of 1 indicates the lowest risk of readmission and a RecuR Score of 5 indicates the highest risk of readmission. This risk score is retrained monthly using data from patients with encounters at UMMS hospitals. The target population is inpatients, currently in-house non-inpatients (Emergency Department, Observation Unit) who might become inpatients, and previous inpatients within 30 days of discharge. The score uses data from the UMMS electronic health record system (EHR), CRISP (Chesapeake Regional Information System for our Patients - the state-designated Health Information Exchange for Maryland), commercial and non-commercial claims, and the U.S. Census Bureau. A comparison of the performance of the RecuR Score compared to LACE and HOSPITAL on the same patients showed that the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve, sometimes known as the Area Under the Curve (AUC), of the RecuR Score significantly outperforms the other two metrics, even prior to discharge. While LACE is only available at discharge, HOSPITAL is described as most accurate at discharge, and even then, it is outperformed by the RecuR Score at 48 hours post-arrival when the RecuR Score is not at its best The literature review shows that efforts to reduce readmission rates are not consistently effective, and it has been difficult to extract a set of interventions that reliably reduces readmissions. Our team theorizes that efforts to reduce readmission rates are not effective because the patients are not adequately stratified into risk categories resulting in interventions not being used on the patients who will benefit the most from the interventions. This pilot addresses this issue by identifying patients at higher risk of readmission using the RecuR Score. The RecuR Score accurately identifies patients at high risk of readmission with an area under the ROC curve of 0.83. This higher risk population (limited to selected principal diagnoses and other inclusion and exclusion criteria) has a higher readmission rate (19.4%) than the hospital's overall readmission rate (11%), which results in a greater opportunity to reduce the readmission rate for the target population. To address the issue of identifying the most effective interventions, our team also theorizes that the interventions used are not robust, meaning that the impact of the intervention is insufficient. For example, most readmission intervention programs focus on phone calls post-discharge without considering a more complete view of the patient's situation. To address this issue, this pilot is implementing more complex interventions such as additional educational materials, a focus on the patient's readmission risk during interdisciplinary medical team huddles/care transition rounds, and multiple home healthcare programs that cover a broad spectrum of potential interventions. The expectation is that by accurately identifying the higher risk patients and having a broader view of the patients' situation with multiple interventions, we can reduce the 30-day unplanned readmission rate.
- STUDY OBJECTIVES Offering more complex interventions that are higher intensity than those currently universally provided at UM CRMC. By targeting patients who are at a higher risk of readmission using a novel AI-based risk score, the RecuR Score, resources can be best allocated to those who need them most. These more intense interventions include additional educational materials, emphasis on a patient's readmission risk during their multidisciplinary team huddle, and home health services. For the study, we will only be targeting patients with a high readmission risk (based on the patient's RecuR Score), to test the efficacy of the standardized use of these resources. The first primary hypothesis for this study is that using a novel UMMS algorithm (RecuR Score) to identify patients at a higher risk of unplanned hospital readmission combined with enhanced pre-discharge and follow-up care interventions including, additional educational material about their health, a focus on their readmission risk during interdisciplinary team huddles, and home health care, can reduce 30-day unplanned hospital readmissions in this high-risk group by 30%. The second primary hypothesis in this fallback design trial, is that using the aforementioned enhanced interventions, there will be a 30% reduction of unplanned hospital readmission risk in patients determined to be a medium-high risk of readmission (RecuR Score level 2 or 3).
- METHODS This is a parallel-group, two-arm, prospective, randomized, non-blinded, fallback design, controlled superiority study of the impact of a new transitional care model for patients determined to be at higher risk of 30-day unplanned hospital readmission conducted at UM CRMC. UM CRMC is an approximately 100-bed community hospital located in Charles County, Maryland and is part of the University of Maryland Medical System. Patients will be 1:1 (equally) randomized to Arm 1 or Arm 2 using a stratified randomization method with stratification by RecuR Score. Participants assigned to Arm 1 will receive the activities in Intervention "A" and the participants assigned to Arm 2 will receive the activities in Intervention "A" AND the activities in Intervention "B." As there is an apparent difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2, neither the patients nor providers will be blinded to the study assignment. Informed consent will be obtained and documented for this study. The target patient population is admitted patients (inpatients) at UM CRMC with a high readmission risk (RecuR Score) and/or specific admission diagnoses that are amenable to peri- and post-discharge interventions, where the goal is to reduce the readmission rate of this high-risk population. This study will use a fallback design with two primary endpoints. The first sequential primary endpoint is 30-day post-discharge unplanned hospital readmission in the overall study population. The second sequential primary endpoint is 30-day post-discharge unplanned hospital readmission in the medium-high risk population (RecuR Score 2 \& 3). The significance level (0.05) will be divided evenly between the two primary endpoints, for a significance level of 0.025 for the first primary endpoint and a reserved 0.025 significance level for the second primary endpoint.
- DATA COLLECTION The patient's Electronic Health Record (EHR) from Epic will be the main source of information about the patient's demographics, admission diagnoses, length of stay, and outcomes data like subsequent hospital encounters in the 90 days post-discharge. The CRISP ("Chesapeake Regional Information System for our Patients") Admission Discharge Transfer (ADT) tool is the source that provides what hospital encounters the enrolled patients have post-discharge if they do not occur at UMMS facilities.
- DATA ANALYSIS As this is a fallback method design, we will first test the first primary endpoint against a 0.025 significance level. If the first test shows statistical significance, we will be able to add the unused alpha level from the first test to the reserved alpha level, for significance level of 0.05 to test the second primary endpoint. If this test fails to show statistical significance, we will proceed and test the second primary endpoint at the reserved 0.025 significance level.
Patient characteristics will be summarized and compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2 for both the overall and RecuR Score 2 and 3 populations. Most results will be compared using a test of difference for two proportions. If the data are multi-categoric, the Mantel-Haenszel method will be used for comparisons. If an event is rare (<5%), the Fisher exact test will be used. Any continuous data will be compared using a t-test or Wilcoxon Rank Sum statistic. If data are greatly skewed, additional methods might be needed. These analyses will be used to present baseline and background characteristics, demonstrating that the analysis is balanced and representative of the general population, or pointing to areas where primary analyses might need to be adjusted to account for imbalances.
All analyses of results for primary and secondary endpoints will be based on the Intent-to-Treat principle, where results are computed based on the Arm that the patient was randomized to rather than which interventions they actually received. All comparisons will be done for both the overall and medium-high risk study populations, assuming the study continues to the second primary endpoint. Comparison of hospital readmission will be performed using either z-tests, or Fischer's Exact test, depending on the rarity of the outcome of interest. If imbalances are noted in the baseline characteristics, adjusted regression models will be tested where indicated. Subgroup analysis will be performed, including a specific focus on differing readmission rates between the various RecuR Score risk levels.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- This is a two-arm interventional study where participants will be randomized to receive either the Standard of Care or Enhanced Care treatment. Participants in the Standard of Care arm will receive the Transitional Care protocol most commonly used for patients at the University of Maryland Charles Regional Medical Center (UM CRMC). Participants in the Enhanced Care arm will receive the interventions in the Standard of Care arm plus the additional protocols unique to Enhanced Care arm (Social Determinants of Health Wheel assessment in the University of Maryland Medical System electronic medical record, coordination of home health services, and additional diagnosis education). These arms are designed to ensure that participants receive the same high quality of care that they would have received before the study while also focusing on some added interventions from the enhanced care arm to help determine if these additional interventions help improve patient outcomes.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Arm 1: Intervention A | Active comparator | Other: Standard of Care* Diagnosis education includes verbal 1:1 patient education by the Transitional Nurse Navigator (TNN) and a folder with Epic printed education and other handouts specific to that disease process. * Follow-up appointment scheduling assistance, including transportation to the follow-up appointment. The Community Health Worker (CHW) or TNN will schedule the appointments for the PCP and other specialists within 1 week when available. * Offer resources in the community post the 1:1 meeting with the patient to meet specific access to care challenges identified for that patient by the TNN or CHW. * Provide weekly follow-up calls for one month by TNN or delegate. * Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) assessment. Screenings by CHW regarding patients' SDOH and documentation in the EHR (Epic) of this SDOH assessment. If a patient demonstrates a need, a CHW will help identify and offer opportunities for the patient. |
| Arm 2: Receives Intervention "A" and Intervention "B" | Experimental | Other: Standard of Care, Other: Enhanced Care* Additional educational training using iPads. Education using iPad and/or teach-back components to reinforce the individualized disease and medication specific education. iPads are programmed with patient education from "The Patient Channel." This visit will be completed by a TNN. * Focus on readmission risk during Care Transition Rounds. Multi-disciplinary team conducts daily rounds to discuss patient. TNNs share the risk scores for the patients and discuss coordination of the patient receiving interventions and other resources suggested by team members. * Home health care from Home Health Services (HHS), Mobile Integrated Healthcare (MIH) or Resources, Education and Access to Community Health (REACH). Involves home visits to the patient, environmental assessments, and medication reconciliation from a home health nurse. Duration and specifications of home health care depend on the patient's needs. Participants will be assigned based on program eligibility and availability. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Patient is in Observation (and is expected to be admitted) or is admitted as an Inpatient Encounter. Consider eligible patients in any unit except Emergency Department.
- Patient has RecuR Score available 24 hours after start of data collection in EHR.
- Patient is at least 18 years of age.
- Participant is willing and able to provide informed consent for the trial.
- Participant has a RecuR Score greater than or equal to 3; OR Participant has a RecuR Score greater than or equal to 2 and length of stay greater than 10 days; OR Participant has a RecuR Score greater than or equal to 2 with admitting diagnosis of COPD, CHF, Diabetes with elevated HbA1c, Hypertension, or pneumonia; OR Participant has any RecuR Score AND current admission is a readmission where participant was not enrolled during any prior admission.
Key exclusion criteria (10 listed)
- Patients who were enrolled in the pilot during an earlier inpatient hospital encounter.
- Patients with encounters having length of stay less than 48 hours or greater than 30 days.
- Patients who are not expected to be discharged to "home", e.g., patients who were admitted from skilled nursing facility (SNF) and are expected to be discharged to SNF. Use Admission Source (or disposition field) as an indicator of who may not be discharged home.
- Patients with an admission diagnosis of Septicemia.
- Patients who lack capacity to sign the consent and participate in the study.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Standard of CareAlso: University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS) Charles Regional Medical Center (CRMC) Appendix A.1. Transitional Care/Nurse Navigator Program, Policy Number: 9770-001* Diagnosis education. * Follow-appointment scheduling assistance. * Offer resources in the community. * Offer weekly follow-up calls for one month. * Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) assessment. | Other | Arm 1: Intervention A, Arm 2: Receives Intervention "A" and Intervention "B" |
| Enhanced Care* Additional educational training using computer tablet devices, such as iPads. * Focus on readmission risk. * Set-up Home Health Services (HHS), Mobile Integrated Healthcare (MIH) or Resources, Education and Access to Community Health (REACH). | Other | Arm 2: Receives Intervention "A" and Intervention "B" |
Primary outcome
Number of overall participants with 30-day post-discharge hospital readmission
Time frame: 30 days post-hospital discharge
This is the first primary endpoint of this fallback design study. It measures the number of participants with a hospital readmission in the 30 days post-hospital discharge in the overall study population.
Number of moderate-high risk participants with 30-day post-discharge hospital readmission
Time frame: 30 days post-hospital discharge
This is the second primary endpoint of this fallback design study. It measures the number of moderate-high risk participants, those having a RecuR Score of 2 or 3, with a hospital readmission in the 30 days post-hospital discharge.
5 secondary outcomes
30 day post-discharge mortality
Time frame: 30 days post-hospital discharge
30 day post-discharge unplanned hospital readmission
Time frame: 30 days post-hospital discharge
90-day post-discharge unplanned hospital readmission
Time frame: 90 days post-hospital discharge
30-day post-discharge emergency department usage
Time frame: 30 days post-hospital discharge
90-day post-discharge emergency department usage
Time frame: 90 days post-hospital discharge
Results and safety
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 15 Feb 2024.
- Background: PubMed 3558716Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8.
- Background: PubMed 28710226Damery S, Combes G. Evaluating the predictive strength of the LACE index in identifying patients at high risk of hospital readmission following an inpatient episode: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2017 Jul 13;7(7):e016921. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016921.
- Background: PubMed 25268437Dhalla IA, O'Brien T, Morra D, Thorpe KE, Wong BM, Mehta R, Frost DW, Abrams H, Ko F, Van Rooyen P, Bell CM, Gruneir A, Lewis GH, Daub S, Anderson GM, Hawker GA, Rochon PA, Laupacis A. Effect of a postdischarge virtual ward on readmission or death for high-risk patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014 Oct 1;312(13):1305-12. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.11492.
- Background: PubMed 26954698Donze JD, Williams MV, Robinson EJ, Zimlichman E, Aujesky D, Vasilevskis EE, Kripalani S, Metlay JP, Wallington T, Fletcher GS, Auerbach AD, Schnipper JL. International Validity of the HOSPITAL Score to Predict 30-Day Potentially Avoidable Hospital Readmissions. JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Apr;176(4):496-502. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.8462.
- Background: PubMed 22007045Hansen LO, Young RS, Hinami K, Leung A, Williams MV. Interventions to reduce 30-day rehospitalization: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):520-8. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00008.
- Background: PubMed 27065180Jenq GY, Doyle MM, Belton BM, Herrin J, Horwitz LI. Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Large-Scale Readmission Reduction Program. JAMA Intern Med. 2016 May 1;176(5):681-90. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.0833.
- Background: PubMed 31029692Kripalani S, Chen G, Ciampa P, Theobald C, Cao A, McBride M, Dittus RS, Speroff T. A transition care coordinator model reduces hospital readmissions and costs. Contemp Clin Trials. 2019 Jun;81:55-61. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2019.04.014. Epub 2019 Apr 25.
- Background: PubMed 24820131Leppin AL, Gionfriddo MR, Kessler M, Brito JP, Mair FS, Gallacher K, Wang Z, Erwin PJ, Sylvester T, Boehmer K, Ting HH, Murad MH, Shippee ND, Montori VM. Preventing 30-day hospital readmissions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Jul;174(7):1095-107. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1608.
- Background: PubMed 34380667Marafino BJ, Escobar GJ, Baiocchi MT, Liu VX, Plimier CC, Schuler A. Evaluation of an intervention targeted with predictive analytics to prevent readmissions in an integrated health system: observational study. BMJ. 2021 Aug 11;374:n1747. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1747.
- Background: PubMed 30109585McWilliams A, Roberge J, Anderson WE, Moore CG, Rossman W, Murphy S, McCall S, Brown R, Carpenter S, Rissmiller S, Furney S. Aiming to Improve Readmissions Through InteGrated Hospital Transitions (AIRTIGHT): a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Jan;34(1):58-64. doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4617-1. Epub 2018 Aug 14.
- Background: PubMed 20194559van Walraven C, Dhalla IA, Bell C, Etchells E, Stiell IG, Zarnke K, Austin PC, Forster AJ. Derivation and validation of an index to predict early death or unplanned readmission after discharge from hospital to the community. CMAJ. 2010 Apr 6;182(6):551-7. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.091117. Epub 2010 Mar 1.
- Background: PubMed 25099997Wang H, Robinson RD, Johnson C, Zenarosa NR, Jayswal RD, Keithley J, Delaney KA. Using the LACE index to predict hospital readmissions in congestive heart failure patients. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2014 Aug 7;14:97. doi: 10.1186/1471-2261-14-97.
- Community-based Care Transitions Program \| CMS Innovation CenterLink provided by the sponsor.
- Overview of U.S. Hospital Stays in 2016: Variation by Geographic RegionLink provided by the sponsor.
- Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP)Link provided by the sponsor.
- National Inpatient Hospital Costs: The Most Expensive Conditions by Payer, 2017Link provided by the sponsor.
- Overview of Clinical Conditions With Frequent and Costly Hospital Readmissions by Payer, 2018Link provided by the sponsor.
Related trials for Patient Readmission
Not yet recruiting
A Clinician-Patient Dual Behavior Change Framework to Leverage Informed Digital Nudges to Reduce Hospital Readmissions and Improve Patient Outcomes: A Trial for Scalable Strategy to Reduce Readmissions (PREVENT-R)
Readmission, Readmission Rates
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Psychoactive Drug Use and Acute Care Use After Trauma and Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
Wounds and Injuries, Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
Recruiting
COordiNated CommuNication, Education, and Care Transitions After Acute Kidney Injury (CONNECT-AKI)
Acute Kidney Injury, Acute Kidney Injury (AKI)
Recruiting
Conducting Wound, Ostomy, and Continence (WOC) Nurse Telephone Follow-up for Post-discharge Ostomy Patients to Reduce Hospital Readmission
Ostomy
Not yet recruiting
Evaluation of a French Hospital Discharge Therapeutic Education Program by Nurses for Heart Failure Patient (EduSor)
Heart Failure
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Stephen N Davis, MBBS principal investigator
University of Maryland, Baltimore
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Enhanced Care in people with Patient Readmission and Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, run by University of Maryland, Baltimore at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 10 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: withdrawn, as of the sponsor's last update on 15 Feb 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Number of overall participants with 30-day post-discharge hospital readmission (time frame: 30 days post-hospital discharge). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05765903, which also lists 12 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 15 Feb 2024.