Association Between Postdischarge Medical Oncology Follow-Up Appointments and Downstream Health Care Use: A Single-Institution Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is limited understanding of the role of postdischarge medical oncology follow-up during care transition periods. Our study describes the care transition patterns and the association between postdischarge medical oncology appointments and downstream health care use at a tertiary academic center. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 25,135 medical oncology admissions between 2018 and 2020 at Yale New Haven Hospital. We examined the association between postdischarge medical oncology appointment timing with 30-day all-cause readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits using multivariable logistic regression models and propensity score–matched analyses. RESULTS: Compared with admissions without appointment within 30 days, admissions with postdischarge medical oncology appointment within 30 days were associated with lower rates of all-cause 30-day readmission (odds ratio [OR] = 0.56, 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.59; P < .001) and ED visit (OR = 0.56, 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.59; P < .001). Admissions with appointment ≤ 14 days were associated with lower rates of 30-day readmission (OR = 0.28, 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.32; P < .001) and ED visit (OR = 0.56, 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.63; P < .001) compared with those with appointment within 15-30 days. Similar patterns in health care use were seen with propensity score matching. Subgroup analyses of cancer types with the most admissions observed similar trends between 30-day readmission and ED visits with appointment timing. CONCLUSION: Timely postdischarge medical oncology appointments were associated with significantly lower likelihood of 30-day readmission and ED visits, suggesting a potential role for postdischarge follow-up as an intervention to decrease health care use.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".