Site of hospital readmission and mortality: a population-based retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unplanned hospital readmission is a complex process, particularly if the patient is readmitted to an acute care institution other than the original hospital. This study tested the hypothesis that readmission to an alternative hospital is associated with increased mortality compared with readmission to the original hospital. METHODS: We performed a population-based retrospective cohort analysis set between 1995 and 2010 for all 21 acute care adult general hospitals in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. Participants were consecutive adults (age ≥ 18 yr) readmitted through the emergency department within 30 days after hospital discharge. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality within 30 days after readmission. RESULTS: Of the 198 149 patients included in the study, 38 134 (19.2%) died within 30 days after readmission. Patients readmitted to an alternative hospital were more likely than those readmitted to the original hospital to be older, reside in a chronic-care facility and arrive by ambulance. Alternative-hospital readmission was associated with a higher risk of death within 30 days (22.3% v. 18.6%, p < 0.001; odds ratio [OR] 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-1.30). The increased risk was substantially less after adjustment for patient- and hospital-level covariables (adjusted OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.10). Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival curves separated early and the absolute difference in mortality continued throughout the entire 1-year follow-up period, but no difference between groups was observed based on adjusted survival analyses. INTERPRETATION: Among patients readmitted within 30 days after discharge, readmission to an alternative hospital was associated with a higher risk of death than readmission to the original hospital. Whether this adverse prognosis reflects a true causal relation or residual confounding is unknown.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".