NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Feltner C, Jones CD, Cené CW, et al. Transitional Care Interventions To Prevent Readmissions for People With Heart Failure [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2014 May. (Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 133.)
Transitional Care Interventions To Prevent Readmissions for People With Heart Failure [Internet].
Show detailsBackground
Heart failure (HF) is a major clinical and public health problem and a leading cause of hospitalization and health care costs in the United States. It is the most common principal discharge diagnosis among Medicare beneficiaries and the third highest for hospital reimbursements, according to 2005 data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).1 Up to 25 percent of patients hospitalized with HF are readmitted within 30 days.2-5 These numbers vary by geographic area and insurance coverage.6
Interventions aimed specifically at preventing early readmission among patients with HF have been developed; they are often referred to as “transitional care interventions.”7,8 To reduce the frequency of rehospitalization of Medicare patients, in October 2012 CMS began lowering reimbursements to hospitals with excessive risk-standardized readmission rates as part of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program authorized by the Affordable Care Act.9 These measures apply to patients readmitted to any hospital within 30 days of discharge for applicable conditions (HF, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia). These policies may promote hospitals to develop effective transition programs to reduce readmission rates for people with HF.
An assessment of the effectiveness and harms of transitional care interventions is needed to support evidence-based policy and clinical decisionmaking. Despite advances in the quality of acute and chronic HF disease management, gaps remain in knowledge about effective interventions to support the transition of care for patients with HF.
Epidemiology of Heart Failure in the United States
In 2010, nearly 7 million Americans 18 years of age and older had a diagnosis of HF; by 2030, an additional 3 million Americans will have the condition.10,11 The incidence of HF increases with age; it affects 1 of every 100 people after 65 years of age.12 Coronary disease and uncontrolled hypertension are the highest population-attributable risks for HF.13 Three-quarters of HF patients have antecedent hypertension.
Survival after HF diagnosis has improved over time, as shown by data from the Framingham Heart Study.14,15 However, the death rate remains high: 50 percent of people diagnosed with HF die within 5 years after diagnosis.14,15 Among Medicare beneficiaries, more than 30 percent of patients with HF die within 1 year after hospitalization.16
HF hospitalizations in the United States have declined by almost 30 percent during the past decade. However, national data show no evidence that readmission rates for HF patients have fallen during the past 2 decades.17
Heart Failure and Preventable Readmissions
Goldfield and colleagues defined a preventable readmission as one clinically related to the prior admission if there was a reasonable expectation that it could have been prevented by provision of quality care in the initial hospitalization, adequate discharge planning, adequate postdischarge followup, or improved coordination between inpatient and outpatient health care teams.18 Although hospital readmission within 30 days of discharge is a crude measure, it has long been used as a quality metric.
In 2007, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission called for hospital-specific public reporting of readmission rates, identifying HF as a priority condition. The Commission stated that readmissions for HF were common, costly, and often preventable.19 An estimated 12.5 percent of admissions for HF were potentially preventable; this number is based on claims data analysis that identifies “red flags” in readmission diagnoses that are likely to represent conditions associated with a prior admission (and, therefore, likely preventable).20
Readmissions following an index hospitalization for HF appear to be related to various conditions. An analysis of 2007 to 2009 Medicare claims data showed that 24.8 percent of beneficiaries admitted with HF were readmitted within 30 days; 35.2 percent of those readmissions were for HF, and the remainder of readmissions were for diverse indications (e.g., renal disorders, pneumonia, arrhythmias, and septicemia/shock).5 The broad range of conditions responsible for readmissions may reflect a “posthospitalization syndrome”—a generalized vulnerability to illness among recently discharged patients.5,21
The relationship between readmission rates and other important outcomes (e.g., mortality, emergency room visits) is unclear. Some data suggest that hospitals with the lowest mortality rate among patients with HF tend to have higher readmission rates.22 Some predict that interventions aimed at reducing readmissions may increase use of other health care services, such as emergency room observational visits.23
Transitional Care for People With Heart Failure
Poorly executed care transitions can lead to inappropriate use of hospital, emergency care, and other services. Recently, experts have used the phrase transitional care interventions to describe disease-management interventions targeted toward populations transitioning from one care setting to another.7,24 Naylor and colleagues defined transitional care as “a broad range of time-limited services designed to ensure health care continuity, avoid preventable poor outcomes among at-risk populations, and promote the safe and timely transfer of patients from one level of care to another or from one type of setting to another” (p.747).7,24
Transitional care interventions overlap with other forms of care (primary care, care coordination, discharge planning, disease management and case management). However, they aim specifically to avoid poor clinical outcomes arising from uncoordinated care.24
Similarly, the American Geriatrics Society defines transitional care as “a set of actions designed to ensure the coordination and continuity of health care as patients transfer between different locations or different levels of care within the same location” (p. 30).24 Interventions include logistical arrangements, education of the patient and family, and coordination among the health professionals involved in the transition. In general, the intended mechanism of action of these interventions is to prevent complications that can occur during the transition from one care setting to another (e.g., medication errors or misunderstanding of self-care instructions) and thus avoid unnecessary readmissions that result from those complications.
No clear consensus exists about when the transition period ends. Although evaluating 30-day readmissions is important for certain stakeholders (hospitals, payers, quality improvement organizations, health care providers), outcomes beyond this period are clinically important and may benefit from overall improvements in care. Outcomes far away from the index hospitalization probably reflect the natural history of HF or an unrelated illness, whereas a higher proportion of early readmissions are thought to be preventable. No clear recipe or set of intervention components defines transitional care interventions; interventions occurring at the patient, health care provider, facility, and system levels are emphasized throughout the care transition. Transitional care interventions tend to focus on the following: patient or caregiver education (including education on self-care, e.g., self-titrating diuretics), medication reconciliation, coordination with outpatient providers, arrangements for future care (e.g., home health, outpatient followup), and symptom monitoring or reinforcement of education during the transition (e.g., home visits, telephone support, or additional outpatient visits).
Existing Guidelines and Current Practice
Existing Guidelines
The 2013 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) Heart Failure guidelines addressed postdischarge HF interventions.25 These guidelines focus on the importance of optimizing HF pharmacotherapy before discharge, providing HF education before discharge (including self-care management), and addressing barriers to care among other factors. Specifically, the following components were noted as reasonable care options: a follow-up visit within 7 to 14 days of disease or a telephone followup within 3 days of discharge (or both).26 The AHA/ACC guidelines also recommend initiating multidisciplinary (MDS)-HF disease management programs for patients at high risk for readmission.
The 2010 Heart Failure Society of America guidelines are similar; their guidance emphasizes particular components of discharge planning.27 The Society does not provide specific guidance on the optimal components of transitional care interventions aimed at preventing readmissions for patients with HF.
Current Practice
Several national performance measures pertain to the standard of care for hospital discharge of HF patients. The Joint Commission performance measures mandate that all patients with HF should receive comprehensive written discharge instructions or other educational materials that address activity level, diet, discharge medications, follow-up appointment, weight monitoring, and planned actions to take should symptoms worsen.28 Hospitals publicly report these measures. In 2011, the ACC/AHA/AMA (American Medical Association) Performance Consortium added a documented postdischarge appointment to the list of recommended HF performance measures.29 Required documentation includes location, date, and time for a follow-up office visit or home health care visit.
Current clinical practice in the care of adults with HF after hospitalization is quite diverse. A recent telephone survey of 100 U.S. hospitals found wide variation in education, discharge processes, care transition, and quality-improvement methods for patients hospitalized with HF.17 Readmission rates vary by both geographic location and insurance coverage.6
Rationale for Evidence Review
Targeting preventable readmissions is an important goal in reducing overall health care costs from both societal and payer perspectives. The cost of care for HF patients is growing as the population ages; the predominant cost driver is hospitalization. Readmissions account for an estimated $15 billion in annual Medicare spending.30 For hospitals, reducing 30-day risk-stratified readmission rates may prevent decreases in Medicare reimbursement. From a patient perspective, addressing preventable readmissions may improve quality of life or function, reduce personal costs, and lower caregiver burden.
Uncertainty remains about effective strategies to reduce early readmission rates among adults with HF. Recent systematic reviews that have addressed HF disease management or transitional care programs have tended to focus on outcomes at 6 to 12 months after an index hospitalization,31 include a narrow range of interventions,32 or exclude interventions that are disease specific (i.e., specific to HF patients).33 Potential harms or unintended consequences of interventions do not appear to have been widely considered in previous reviews. For example, HF may place a tremendous burden on patients and families. Effective self-care involves adhering to medication regimens, observing dietary restrictions, managing symptom (e.g., adjusting diuretic dosing), and notifying providers when problems arise.34,35 Interventions aimed to promote self-care among HF patients may increase (or decrease) patient and caregiver burden.
Scope and Key Questions
A community hospital administrator nominated this topic; the nominator wanted to know how to prevent readmissions for patients with HF. The primary interest involved the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program and penalties assigned by CMS for excess risk-stratified readmissions. The nominator commented that reducing mortality and improving quality of life were also important outcomes.
To address these issues, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of transitional care interventions for adults with HF. Our report focuses mainly on transitional care interventions that aim to reduce “early” readmissions and mortality for patients hospitalized with HF. We consider early to include these events occurring at any time up to 6 months following an index hospitalization. We also examine several related issues, including use of other health care services (e.g., emergency room visits), quality of life, and potential harms such as increased caregiver burden. We include these outcomes because they provide information on the potential implications on other health and utilization outcomes of strategies aimed at preventing readmissions. Specifically, we address the following five Key Questions (KQs):
Key Question 1. Among adults who have been admitted for heart failure, do transitional care interventions increase or decrease the following health care utilization rates?
- Readmission rates
- Emergency room visits
- Acute care visits
- Hospital days (of subsequent readmissions)
Key Question 2. Among adults who have been admitted for heart failure, do transitional care interventions increase or decrease the following health and social outcomes?
- Mortality rate
- Functional status
- Quality of life
- Caregiver burden
- Self-care burden
Key Question 3. This question has three parts:
- What are the components of effective interventions?
- Among effective interventions, are particular components necessary?
- Among multicomponent interventions, do particular components add benefit?
Key Question 4. This question has three parts:
- Does the effectiveness of interventions differ based on intensity (e.g., duration, frequency or periodicity) of the interventions?
- Does the effectiveness of interventions differ based on delivery personnel (e.g., nurse, pharmacist)?
- Does the effectiveness of interventions differ based on method of communication (e.g., face-to-face, telephone, Internet)?
Key Question 5. Do transitional care interventions differ in effectiveness or harms for subgroups of patients based on age, sex, race, ethnicity, disease severity (left ventricular ejection fraction or New York Heart Association classification), coexisting conditions, or socioeconomic status?
Analytic Framework
We developed an analytic framework to guide the systematic review process (Figure 1). It notes all five KQs. Both KQ 1 and KQ 2 address the potential benefits and harms of transitional care interventions. The two overarching boxes (components; the effectiveness variables) address KQ 3 and KQ 4, respectively.

Figure 1
Analytic framework for transitional care interventions to prevent readmissions in people with heart failure. KQ = key question
Organization of This Report
The remainder of the review describes our methods in detail and presents the results of our synthesis of the literature with summary tables and the strength-of-evidence grades for major comparisons and outcomes. The discussion section offers our conclusions, summarizes our findings, and provides other information relevant to the interpretation of this work for clinical practice and future research. References, a list of acronyms and abbreviations, and a glossary of terms follow the discussion section.
Appendix A contains the exact search strings we used in our literature searches. Studies excluded at the stage of reviewing full-text articles with reasons for exclusion are listed in Appendix B. Detailed tables of intervention components appear in Appendix C. Appendix D provides the specific questions used for evaluating the risk of bias of all included trials, documents risk-of-bias ratings for each study, and explains the rational for high or unclear ratings. Appendices E and F document various meta-analyses (Appendix E gives forest plots to summarize results of individual trials and pooled analyses; Appendix F presents sensitivity analyses). Appendix G presents information about our grading of the strength of the various bodies of evidence (tables for individual domain assessments and overall strength-of-evidence grades for each KQ, organized by intervention category).
- Introduction - Transitional Care Interventions To Prevent Readmissions for Peopl...Introduction - Transitional Care Interventions To Prevent Readmissions for People With Heart Failure
- Towards a Framework for Communicating Confidence in Methodological Recommendatio...Towards a Framework for Communicating Confidence in Methodological Recommendations for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
- Diagnosis and Treatment of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue SyndromeDiagnosis and Treatment of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
- July 2016 Addendum - Diagnosis and Treatment of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chroni...July 2016 Addendum - Diagnosis and Treatment of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
- Treatments for Fibromyalgia in Adult SubgroupsTreatments for Fibromyalgia in Adult Subgroups
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...