We have located links that may give you full text access.
A validation study of the high acuity readmission risk pediatric screen (HARRPS) tool©: Predicting readmission risk within the pediatric population.
Journal of Pediatric Nursing 2023 July 21
BACKGROUND: The initial research study of the High Acuity Readmission Risk Pediatric Screen (HARRPS) Tool © focused on using retrospective data to apply weighted values to the questions within the tool, identify overall risk score, and attribute risk categories (low, moderate, high risk) to the overall risk score. This study focused on validating the data from the initial study, as well as cross examining the need to include admission diagnosis within the tool.
METHOD: Study was a single-centered, retrospective chart review study using a different subset of patients from the initial study. Pediatric patients with thirty-day readmissions were compared to pediatric patients without a thirty-day readmission over a twelve-month period. Utilized same statistical software and methodology from initial study to identify if readmission risk probability could be replicated with a different population.
RESULTS: The initial study performed in 2018 demonstrated a c-statistic score/ area under the curve (AUC) of 0.68 [95% CI: 0.67, 0.69]. In addition, the initial study demonstrated as risk score increases, the probability of readmission gradually increased until a patient had a risk score of seven or greater, at which point readmission risk plateaued. This resulted in low, moderate, and high readmission risk categories. The current study performed using data from 2019 demonstrated an improved c-statistic score / AUC of 0.83 [95% CI: 0.80, 0.87] with admission diagnosis included, and a c-statistic score / AUC of 0.80 [95% CI: 0.76, 0.83] without the admission diagnosis included. The analysis of overall risk score demonstrated a substantial difference in how to interpret final readmission risk scores. Both the initial study and validation study were consistent in demonstrating a risk score of three or less was associated with low readmission risk. However, in the validation study, there was no substantial difference between moderate or high risk, leading to updating the tool from 3 risk categories into 2 risk categories of low risk and at risk of readmission.
CONCLUSION: Based on the finding from the validation study, the admission diagnosis was removed from the HARRPS Tool© as the difference in c-statistic score was nominal, and the risk categories were changed from three categories (low, moderate, high risk) to two categories of low risk (score 0-2) and at risk of readmission for a score of 3+. The ability of the HARRPS Tool© to predict readmission risk preforms best with a c-statistic = 0.80, outperforming the following tools: LACE (0.65), LACE -SDH (0.67), LACE + (0.61), Epic's readmission risk model (0.69), and SQLAPE ® (0.71) (Ryan, et al., 2021; Hwang, et al., 2021).
METHOD: Study was a single-centered, retrospective chart review study using a different subset of patients from the initial study. Pediatric patients with thirty-day readmissions were compared to pediatric patients without a thirty-day readmission over a twelve-month period. Utilized same statistical software and methodology from initial study to identify if readmission risk probability could be replicated with a different population.
RESULTS: The initial study performed in 2018 demonstrated a c-statistic score/ area under the curve (AUC) of 0.68 [95% CI: 0.67, 0.69]. In addition, the initial study demonstrated as risk score increases, the probability of readmission gradually increased until a patient had a risk score of seven or greater, at which point readmission risk plateaued. This resulted in low, moderate, and high readmission risk categories. The current study performed using data from 2019 demonstrated an improved c-statistic score / AUC of 0.83 [95% CI: 0.80, 0.87] with admission diagnosis included, and a c-statistic score / AUC of 0.80 [95% CI: 0.76, 0.83] without the admission diagnosis included. The analysis of overall risk score demonstrated a substantial difference in how to interpret final readmission risk scores. Both the initial study and validation study were consistent in demonstrating a risk score of three or less was associated with low readmission risk. However, in the validation study, there was no substantial difference between moderate or high risk, leading to updating the tool from 3 risk categories into 2 risk categories of low risk and at risk of readmission.
CONCLUSION: Based on the finding from the validation study, the admission diagnosis was removed from the HARRPS Tool© as the difference in c-statistic score was nominal, and the risk categories were changed from three categories (low, moderate, high risk) to two categories of low risk (score 0-2) and at risk of readmission for a score of 3+. The ability of the HARRPS Tool© to predict readmission risk preforms best with a c-statistic = 0.80, outperforming the following tools: LACE (0.65), LACE -SDH (0.67), LACE + (0.61), Epic's readmission risk model (0.69), and SQLAPE ® (0.71) (Ryan, et al., 2021; Hwang, et al., 2021).
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Consensus Statement on Vitamin D Status Assessment and Supplementation: Whys, Whens, and Hows.Endocrine Reviews 2024 April 28
The Tricuspid Valve: A Review of Pathology, Imaging, and Current Treatment Options: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 26
Intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine during the surgery to prevent postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European Journal of Medical Research 2024 April 19
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Ventilator Waveforms May Give Clues to Expiratory Muscle Activity.American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2024 April 25
Acute Kidney Injury and Electrolyte Imbalances Caused by Dapagliflozin Short-Term Use.Pharmaceuticals 2024 March 27
Systemic lupus erythematosus.Lancet 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app