TY - JOUR T1 - Misinterpretation of meaning and intended use of potentially preventable readmissions JF - BMJ Quality & Safety JO - BMJ Qual Saf SP - 207 LP - 208 DO - 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005009 VL - 25 IS - 3 AU - Norbert Goldfield AU - Richard Averill AU - Richard Fuller AU - John Hughes Y1 - 2016/03/01 UR - http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/25/3/207.abstract N2 - The article ‘Do pneumonia readmissions flagged as potentially preventable by the 3M PPR software have more process of care problems?’ by Borzecki et al concluded that ‘PPR categorization did not reflect expected differences in quality of care’.1 Unfortunately, the design of the study was based on a misinterpretation of the meaning of the potentially preventable readmissions (PPR) categorisation as well as its intended use.Following discharge of a patient with pneumonia, there are three possible outcomes: the patient is readmitted for a condition that is categorised as a PPR, for a condition that is categorised as a non-PPR or the patient is not readmitted. A readmission is categorised as a PPR if there was a reasonable expectation that it could have … ER -