Dataset Information

Something is amiss in Denmark: a comparison of preventable hospitalisations and readmissions for chronic medical conditions in the Danish Healthcare system and Kaiser Permanente.

ABSTRACT:

Background

As many other European healthcare systems the Danish healthcare system (DHS) has targeted chronic condition care in its reform efforts. Benchmarking is a valuable tool to identify areas for improvement. Prior work indicates that chronic care coordination is poor in the DHS, especially in comparison with care in Kaiser Permanente (KP), an integrated delivery system based in the United States. We investigated population rates of hospitalisation and readmission rates for ambulatory care sensitive, chronic medical conditions in the two systems.

Methods

Using a historical cohort study design, age and gender adjusted population rates of hospitalisations for angina, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and hypertension, plus rates of 30-day readmission and mortality were investigated for all individuals aged 65+ in the DHS and KP.

Results

DHS had substantially higher rates of hospitalisations, readmissions, and mean lengths of stay per hospitalisation, than KP had. For example, the adjusted angina hospitalisation rates in 2007 for the DHS and KP respectively were 1.01/100 persons (95%CI: 0.98-1.03) vs. 0.11/100 persons (95%CI: 0.10-0.13/100 persons); 21.6% vs. 9.9% readmission within 30 days (OR = 2.53; 95% CI: 1.84-3.47); and mean length of stay was 2.52 vs. 1.80 hospital days. Mortality up through 30 days post-discharge was not consistently different in the two systems.

Conclusions

There are substantial differences between the DHS and KP in the rates of preventable hospitalisations and subsequent readmissions associated with chronic conditions, which suggest much opportunity for improvement within the Danish healthcare system. Reductions in hospitalisations also could improve patient welfare and free considerable resources for use towards preventing disease exacerbations. These conclusions may also apply for similar public systems such as the US Medicare system, the NHS and other systems striving to improve the integration of care for persons with chronic conditions.

SUBMITTER: Schiotz M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3258291 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Something is amiss in Denmark: a comparison of preventable hospitalisations and readmissions for chronic medical conditions in the Danish Healthcare system and Kaiser Permanente.

Schiøtz Michaela M Price Mary M Frølich Anne A Søgaard Jes J Kristensen Jette K JK Krasnik Allan A Ross Murray N MN Diderichsen Finn F Hsu John J

BMC health services research 20111222

<h4>Background</h4>As many other European healthcare systems the Danish healthcare system (DHS) has targeted chronic condition care in its reform efforts. Benchmarking is a valuable tool to identify areas for improvement. Prior work indicates that chronic care coordination is poor in the DHS, especially in comparison with care in Kaiser Permanente (KP), an integrated delivery system based in the United States. We investigated population rates of hospitalisation and readmission rates for ambulato ...[more]

PMID: 22192270

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo inform Danish health care reform efforts, we compared health care system inputs and performance and assessed the usefulness of these comparisons for informing policy.MethodsRetrospective analysis of secondary data in the Danish Health Care System (DHS) with 5.3 million citizens and the Kaiser Permanente integrated delivery system (KP) with 6.1 million members in California. We used secondary data to compare population characteristics, professional staff, delivery structure, utilisation and quality measures, and direct costs. We adjusted the cost data to increase comparability.ResultsA higher percentage of KP patients had chronic conditions than did patients in the DHS: 6.3% vs. 2.8% (diabetes) and 19% vs. 8.5% (hypertension), respectively. KP had fewer total physicians and staff compared to DHS, with 134 physicians/100,000 individuals versus 311 physicians/100,000 individuals. KP physicians are salaried employees; in contrast, DHS primary care physicians own and run their practices, remunerated by a mixture of capitation and fee-for-service payments, while most specialists are employed at largely public hospitals. Hospitalisation rates and lengths of stay (LOS) were lower in KP, with mean acute admission LOS of 3.9 days versus 6.0 days in the DHS, and, for stroke admissions, 4.2 days versus 23 days. Screening rates also differed: 93% of KP members with diabetes received retinal screening; only 46% of patients in the DHS with diabetes did. Per capita operating expenditures were PPP$1,951 (KP) and PPP $1,845 (DHS).ConclusionCompared to the DHS, KP had a population with more documented disease and higher operating costs, while employing fewer physicians and resources like hospital beds. Observed quality measures also appear higher in KP. However, simple comparisons between health care systems may have limited value without detailed information on mechanisms underlying differences or identifying translatable care improvement strategies. We suggest items for more in-depth analyses that could improve the interpretability of findings and help identify lessons that can be transferred.

Project description:BackgroundThe Kaiser Permanente model of integrated health delivery is highly regarded for high-quality and efficient health care. Efforts to reproduce Kaiser's success have mostly failed. One factor that has received little attention and that could explain Kaiser's advantage is its commitment to and investment in nursing as a key component of organizational culture and patient-centered care.PurposeThe aim of this study was to investigate the role of Kaiser's nursing organization in promoting quality of care.MethodologyThis was a cross-sectional analysis of linked secondary data from multiple sources, including a detailed survey of nurses, for 564 adult, general acute care hospitals from California, Florida, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey in 2006-2007. We used logistic regression models to examine whether patient (mortality and failure-to-rescue) and nurse (burnout, job satisfaction, and intent-to-leave) outcomes in Kaiser hospitals were better than in non-Kaiser hospitals. We then assessed whether differences in nursing explained outcomes differences between Kaiser and other hospitals. Finally, we examined whether Kaiser hospitals compared favorably with hospitals known for having excellent nurse work environments-Magnet hospitals.FindingsPatient and nurse outcomes in Kaiser hospitals were significantly better compared with non-Magnet hospitals. Kaiser hospitals had significantly better nurse work environments, staffing levels, and more nurses with bachelor's degrees. Differences in nursing explained a significant proportion of the Kaiser outcomes advantage. Kaiser hospital outcomes were comparable with Magnet hospitals, where better outcomes have been largely explained by differences in nursing.ImplicationsAn important element in Kaiser's success is its investment in professional nursing, which may not be evident to systems seeking to achieve Kaiser's advantage. Our results suggest that a possible strategy for achieving outcomes like Kaiser may be for hospitals to consider Magnet designation, a proven and cost-effective strategy to improve process of care through investments in nursing.

Project description:IntroductionThe proportion of potentially preventable hospitalisations (PPH) which are actually preventable is unknown, and little is understood about the factors associated with individual preventable PPH. The Diagnosing Potentially Preventable Hospitalisations (DaPPHne) Study aimed to determine the proportion of PPH for chronic conditions which are preventable and identify factors associated with chronic PPH classified as preventable.SettingThree hospitals in NSW, Australia.ParticipantsCommunity-dwelling patients with unplanned hospital admissions between November 2014 and June 2017 for congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes complications or angina pectoris. Data were collected from patients, their general practitioners (GPs) and hospital records.Outcome measuresAssessments of the preventability of each admission by an Expert Panel.Results323 admissions were assessed for preventability: 46% (148/323) were assessed as preventable, 30% (98/323) as not preventable and 24% (77/323) as unclassifiable. Statistically significant differences in proportions preventable were found between the three study sites (29%; 47%; 58%; p≤0.001) and by primary discharge diagnosis (p≤0.001).Significant predictors of an admission being classified as preventable were: study site; final principal diagnosis of CHF; fewer diagnoses on discharge; shorter hospital stay; GP diagnosis of COPD; GP consultation in the last 12 months; not having had a doctor help make the decision to go to hospital; not arriving by ambulance; patient living alone; having someone help with medications and requiring help with daily tasks.ConclusionsThat less than half the chronic PPH were assessed as preventable, and the range of factors associated with preventability, including site and discharge diagnosis, are important considerations in the validity of PPH as an indicator. Opportunities for interventions to reduce chronic PPH include targeting patients with CHF and COPD, and the provision of social welfare and support services for patients living alone and those requiring help with daily tasks and medication management.

Project description:BackgroundReadmissions after total joint arthroplasty have become a key quality measure in elective surgery in the United States. The Affordable Care Act includes the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program, which calls for reduced payments to hospitals with excessive readmissions. This policy uses a method to determine excess readmission ratios and calculate readmission payment adjustments to hospitals, however, it is unclear whether readmission rates are an effective quality metric. The reasons or conditions associated with readmission after elective THA have been well established but the extent to which readmissions can be prevented after THA remains unclear.Questions/purposes(1) Are unplanned readmissions after THA associated with orthopaedic or medical causes? (2) Are these readmissions preventable? (3) When during the course of aftercare are orthopaedic versus medical readmissions more likely to occur?MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated all 1096 elective THAs for osteoarthritis performed between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2014 at a major academic medical center. Of those, 69 patients (6%) who met inclusion criteria were readmitted in our healthcare system within 90 days of discharge after the index procedure during the study period. Fifty patients were readmitted within 30 days of discharge after the index procedure (5%). We defined a readmission as any unplanned inpatient or observation status admission to the hospital spanning at least one midnight. A panel of physicians not involved in the care of these patients used available criteria and existing consensus guidelines to evaluate the medical records, radiographs, and operative reports to identify whether the underlying reason for readmission was orthopaedic versus medical. They subsequently were classified as either nonpreventable or potentially preventable readmissions, based on any care that may have occurred during the index hospitalization. To make such determinations, consensus specialty society guidelines were used whenever possible for each readmission diagnosis.ResultsA total of 50 of 1096 patients (5% of those who underwent THA during the period in question) were readmitted within 30 days and 69 of 1096 (6%) were readmitted within 90 days of their index procedures. Thirty-one patients were readmitted for orthopaedic reasons (31/69; 45%) and 38 of 69 were readmitted for medical reasons (55%). Three readmissions (three of 69; 4%) were identified as potentially preventable. Of these potentially preventable readmissions, one was orthopaedic (hip dislocation) and two were medical. Thirty-day readmissions were more likely to be orthopaedic than 90-day readmissions (odds ratio, 4.06; 95% CI, 1.18-13.96; p = 0.026).ConclusionsUsing a panel of expert reviewers, available existing criteria, and consensus methodology, it appears only a small percentage of readmissions after THA are potentially preventable. Orthopaedic readmissions occur earlier during the postoperative course. Currently, existing policies and readmission penalties may not serve as valuable external quality metrics. The readmission rates in our study may represent the threshold for expected readmission rates after THA. Future studies should enroll larger numbers of patients and have independent review panels in efforts to refine criteria for what constitutes preventable readmissions.Level of evidenceLevel III, therapeutic study.

Dataset Information

Something is amiss in Denmark: a comparison of preventable hospitalisations and readmissions for chronic medical conditions in the Danish Healthcare system and Kaiser Permanente.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Something is amiss in Denmark: a comparison of preventable hospitalisations and readmissions for chronic medical conditions in the Danish Healthcare system and Kaiser Permanente.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets