OBJECTIVE: To identify the risk factors home healthcare (HHC) clinicians associate with patient deterioration and understand how clinicians respond to and document these risk factors. METHODS: We interviewed multidisciplinary HHC clinicians from January to March of 2021. Risk factors were mapped to standardized terminologies (eg, Omaha System). We used directed content analysis to identify risk factors for deterioration. We used inductive thematic analysis to understand HHC clinicians' response to risk factors and documentation of risk factors. RESULTS: Fifteen HHC clinicians identified a total of 79 risk factors that were mapped to standardized terminologies. HHC clinicians most frequently responded to risk factors by communicating with the prescribing provider (86.7% of clinicians) or following up with patients and caregivers (86.7%). HHC clinicians stated that a majority of risk factors can be found in clinical notes (ie, care coordination (53.3%) or visit (46.7%)). DISCUSSION: Clinicians acknowledged that social factors play a role in deterioration risk; but these factors are infrequently studied in HHC. While a majority of risk factors were represented in the Omaha System, additional terminologies are needed to comprehensively capture risk. Since most risk factors are documented in clinical notes, methods such as natural language processing are needed to extract them. CONCLUSION: This study engaged clinicians to understand risk for deterioration during HHC. The results of our study support the development of an early warning system by providing a comprehensive list of risk factors grounded in clinician expertize and mapped to standardized terminologies.

OBJECTIVE: This article reports a systematic review of studies containing development and validation of models predicting postacute care destination after adult inpatient hospitalization, summarizes clinical populations and variables, evaluates model performance, assesses risk of bias and applicability, and makes recommendations to reduce bias in future models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group criteria. Online databases were searched in June 2020 to identify all published studies in this area. Data were extracted based on the CHARMS checklist, and studies were evaluated based on predictor variables, validation, performance in validation, risk of bias, and applicability using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) tool. RESULTS: The final sample contained 28 articles with 35 models for evaluation. Models focused on surgical (22), medical (5), or both (8) populations. Eighteen models were internally validated, 10 were externally validated, and 7 models underwent both types. Model performance varied within and across populations. Most models used retrospective data, the median number of predictors was 8.5, and most models demonstrated risk of bias. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Prediction modeling studies for postacute care destinations are becoming more prolific in the literature, but model development and validation strategies are inconsistent, and performance is variable. Most models are developed using regression, but machine learning methods are increasing in frequency. Future studies should ensure the rigorous variable selection and follow TRIPOD guidelines. Only 14% of the models have been tested or implemented beyond original studies, so translation into practice requires further investigation.