Is it legitimate to use unplanned hospitalizations as a quality indicator for cancer patients? A retrospective French cohort study with special attention to the influence of social deprivation.

PURPOSE

Readmission indicators are used around the world to assess the quality of hospital care. We aimed to assess the relevance of this type of indicator in oncology, especially for socially deprived patients. Our objectives were (1) to assess the proportion of unplanned hospitalizations (UHs) in cancer patients, (2) to assess the proportion of UHs that were avoidable, i.e., related to poor care quality, and (3) to analyze cancer patients the effect of patients' deprivation level on the type of UH (avoidable UHs vs. unavoidable UHs).

METHODS

In a French university hospital, we selected all hospitalizations over a year for a random sample of cancer patients. Based on medical records, we identified those among UHs due to avoidable health problems. We assessed the association between social deprivation, home-to-hospital distance, or home-to-general practitioner with the type of UH (avoidable vs. unavoidable) via a multivariate binary logit estimation.

RESULTS

Among 2349 hospitalizations (355 patients), there were 383 UHs (16 %), among which 38% were avoidable. Among UHs, the European Deprivation Index was significantly associated with the risk of avoidable UHs, with a lower risk of avoidable UH for patients with medium or high social deprivation.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the use of UHs rate as a quality indicator is questionable in oncology. Indeed, the majority of UHs were not avoidable. Furthermore, within UHs, those involving patients with medium or high social deprivation are more often unavoidable in comparison with other patients.