BACKGROUND:Hospital readmission rates are used for quality and pay-for-performance initiatives. To identify readmissions from administrative data, two commonly employed methods are focusing either on unplanned readmissions (used by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS) or potentially avoidable readmissions (used by commercial vendors such as SQLape or 3 M). However, it is not known which of these methods has higher criterion validity and can more accurately identify actually avoidable readmissions. OBJECTIVES:A manual record review based on data from seven hospitals was used to compare the validity of the methods by CMS and SQLape. METHODS:Seven independent reviewers reviewed 738 single inpatient stays. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and F1 score were examined to characterize the ability of an original CMS method, an adapted version of the CMS method, and the SQLape method to identify unplanned, potentially avoidable, and actually avoidable readmissions. RESULTS:Both versions of the CMS method had greater sensitivity (92/86% vs. 62%) and a higher PPV (84/91% vs. 71%) than the SQLape method, in terms of identifying their outcomes of interest (unplanned vs. potentially avoidable readmissions, respectively). To distinguish actually avoidable readmissions, the two versions of the CMS method again displayed higher sensitivity (90/85% vs. 66%), although the PPV did not differ significantly between the different methods. CONCLUSIONS:Thus, the CMS method has both higher criterion validity and greater sensitivity for identifying actually avoidable readmissions, compared with the SQLape method. Consequently, the CMS method should primarily be used for quality initiatives.

Abstract The validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) has been established in the USA and Canada. However, these indicators are also used for hospital benchmarking and cross-country comparisons in other nations with different health-care settings and coding systems as well as missing present on admission (POA) flags in the administrative data. This study sought to comprehensively assess and compare the validity of 16 PSIs in Switzerland, where they have not been previously applied. We performed a medical record review using administrative and electronic medical record data from nine Swiss hospitals. Seven independent reviewers evaluated 1245 cases at various hospitals using retrospective data from the years 2014–18. True positives, false positives, positive predictive values (PPVs), and reasons for misclassification were compared across all investigated PSIs, and the documentation quality of the PSIs was examined. PSIs 6 (iatrogenic pneumothorax), 10 (postoperative acute kidney injury), 11 (postoperative respiratory failure), 13 (postoperative sepsis), 14 (wound dehiscence), 17 (birth trauma), and 18 and 19 (obstetric trauma with or without instrument) showed high PPVs (range: 90–99%) and were not strongly influenced by missing POA information. In contrast, PSIs 3 (pressure ulcer), 5 (retained surgical item), 7 (central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection), 8 (fall with hip fracture), and 15 (accidental puncture/laceration) showed low PPVs (range: 18–49%). In the case of PSIs 3, 8, and 12 (perioperative embolism/thrombosis), the low PPVs were largely due to the lack of POA information. Additionally, it was found that the documentation of PSI 3 in discharge letters could be improved. We found large differences in validity across the 16 PSIs in Switzerland. These results can guide policymakers in Switzerland and comparable health-care systems in selecting and prioritizing suitable PSIs for quality initiatives. Furthermore, the national introduction of a POA flag would allow for the inclusion of additional PSIs in quality monitoring.