Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 501

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

An Administrative Claims Measure Suitable for Profiling Hospital Performance on the Basis of 30-Day All-Cause Readmission Rates Among Patients With Heart Failure

Open access
Keenan, Patricia S., Normand, Sharon-Lise T., Lin, Zhenqiu, Drye, Elizabeth E., Bhat, Kanchana R., Ross, Joseph S., Schuur, Jeremiah D., Stauffer, Brett D., Bernheim, Susannah M., Epstein, Andrew J., Wang, Yongfei, Herrin, Jeph, Chen, Jersey, Federer, Jessica J., Mattera, Jennifer A., Wang, Yun, Krumholz, Harlan M.·2008·Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

Abstract

Background— Readmission soon after hospital discharge is an expensive and often preventable event for patients with heart failure. We present a model approved by the National Quality Forum for the purpose of public reporting of hospital-level readmission rates by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Methods and Results— We developed a hierarchical logistic regression model to calculate hospital risk-standardized 30-day all-cause readmission rates for patients hospitalized with heart failure. The model was derived with the use of Medicare claims data for a 2004 cohort and validated with the use of claims and medical record data. The unadjusted readmission rate was 23.6%. The final model included 37 variables, had discrimination ranging from 15% observed 30-day readmission rate in the lowest predictive decile to 37% in the upper decile, and had a c statistic of 0.60. The 25th and 75th percentiles of the risk-standardized readmission rates across 4669 hospitals were 23.1% and 24.0%, with 5th and 95th percentiles of 22.2% and 25.1%, respectively. The odds of all-cause readmission for a hospital 1 standard deviation above average was 1.30 times that of a hospital 1 standard deviation below average. State-level adjusted readmission rates developed with the use of the claims model are similar to rates produced for the same cohort with the use of a medical record model (correlation, 0.97; median difference, 0.06 percentage points). Conclusions— This claims-based model of hospital risk-standardized readmission rates for heart failure patients produces estimates that may serve as surrogates for those derived from a medical record model.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circoutcomes.108.802686

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 501

Metadata

Authors
Keenan, P. S., Normand, S.-L. T., Lin, Z., Drye, E. E., Bhat, K. R., Ross, J. S., Schuur, J. D., Stauffer, B. D., Bernheim, S. M., Epstein, A. J., Wang, Y., Herrin, J., Chen, J., Federer, J. J., Mattera, J. A., Wang, Y., & Krumholz, H. M.
Venue
Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Published
2008-09
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
29-37
ISSN
  • 1941-7705 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-7713
OpenAlex
W2113483789
Cited by
501
References
0
FWCI
11.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Administrative Claims Measure Suitable for Profiling Hospital Performance on the Basis of 30-Day All-Cause Readmission Rates Among Patients With Heart Failure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circoutcomes.108.802686
The paper
Keenan, P. S., Normand, S.-L. T., Lin, Z., Drye, E. E., Bhat, K. R., Ross, J. S., Schuur, J. D., Stauffer, B. D., Bernheim, S. M., Epstein, A. J., Wang, Y., Herrin, J., Chen, J., Federer, J. J., Mattera, J. A., Wang, Y., & Krumholz, H. M. (2008). An Administrative Claims Measure Suitable for Profiling Hospital Performance on the Basis of 30-Day All-Cause Readmission Rates Among Patients With Heart Failure. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1161/circoutcomes.108.802686

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.