Dataset Information

Weekend specialist intensity and admission mortality in acute hospital trusts in England: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Increased mortality rates associated with weekend hospital admission (the so-called weekend effect) have been attributed to suboptimum staffing levels of specialist consultants. However, evidence for a causal association is elusive, and the magnitude of the weekend specialist deficit remains unquantified. This uncertainty could hamper efforts by national health systems to introduce 7 day health services. We aimed to examine preliminary associations between specialist intensity and weekend admission mortality across the English National Health Service.

Methods

Eligible hospital trusts were those in England receiving unselected emergency admissions. On Sunday June 15 and Wednesday June 18, 2014, we undertook a point prevalence survey of hospital specialists (consultants) to obtain data relating to the care of patients admitted as emergencies. We defined specialist intensity at each trust as the self-reported estimated number of specialist hours per ten emergency admissions between 0800 h and 2000 h on Sunday and Wednesday. With use of data for all adult emergency admissions for financial year 2013-14, we compared weekend to weekday admission risk of mortality with the Sunday to Wednesday specialist intensity ratio within each trust. We stratified trusts by size quintile.

Findings

127 of 141 eligible acute hospital trusts agreed to participate; 115 (91%) trusts contributed data to the point prevalence survey. Of 34,350 clinicians surveyed, 15,537 (45%) responded. Substantially fewer specialists were present providing care to emergency admissions on Sunday (1667 [11%]) than on Wednesday (6105 [42%]). Specialists present on Sunday spent 40% more time caring for emergency patients than did those present on Wednesday (mean 5·74 h [SD 3·39] vs 3·97 h [3·31]); however, the median specialist intensity on Sunday was only 48% (IQR 40-58) of that on Wednesday. The Sunday to Wednesday intensity ratio was less than 0·7 in 104 (90%) of the contributing trusts. Mortality risk among patients admitted at weekends was higher than among those admitted on weekdays (adjusted odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·08-1·11; p<0·0001). There was no significant association between Sunday to Wednesday specialist intensity ratios and weekend to weekday mortality ratios (r -0·042; p=0·654).

Interpretation

This cross-sectional analysis did not detect a correlation between weekend staffing of hospital specialists and mortality risk for emergency admissions. Further investigation is needed to evaluate whole-system secular change during the implementation of 7 day services. Policy makers should exercise caution before attributing the weekend effect mainly to differences in specialist staffing.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme.

SUBMITTER: Aldridge C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4945602 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe have an incomplete understanding of COVID-19 characteristics at hospital presentation and whether underlying subphenotypes are associated with clinical outcomes and therapeutic responses.MethodsFor this cross-sectional study, we extracted electronic health data from adults hospitalized between 1 March and 30 August 2020 with a PCR-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 at five New York City Hospitals. We obtained clinical and laboratory data from the first 24 h of the patient's hospitalization. Treatment with tocilizumab and convalescent plasma was assessed over hospitalization. The primary outcome was mortality; secondary outcomes included intubation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and length of stay (LOS). First, we employed latent class analysis (LCA) to identify COVID-19 subphenotypes on admission without consideration of outcomes and assigned each patient to a subphenotype. We then performed robust Poisson regression to examine associations between COVID-19 subphenotype assignment and outcome. We explored whether the COVID-19 subphenotypes had a differential response to tocilizumab and convalescent plasma therapies.ResultsA total of 4620 patients were included. LCA identified six subphenotypes, which were distinct by level of inflammation, clinical and laboratory derangements and ranged from a hypoinflammatory subphenotype with the fewest derangements to a hyperinflammatory with multiorgan dysfunction subphenotypes. Multivariable regression analyses found differences in risk for mortality, intubation, ICU admission and LOS, as compared to the hypoinflammatory subphenotype. For example, in multivariable analyses the moderate inflammation with fever subphenotype had 3.29 times the risk of mortality (95% CI 2.05, 5.28), while the hyperinflammatory with multiorgan failure subphenotype had 17.87 times the risk of mortality (95% CI 11.56, 27.63), as compared to the hypoinflammatory subphenotype. Exploratory analyses suggested that subphenotypes may differential respond to convalescent plasma or tocilizumab therapy.ConclusionCOVID-19 subphenotype at hospital admission may predict risk for mortality, ICU admission and intubation and differential response to treatment.KEY MESSAGEThis cross-sectional study of COVID patients admitted to the Mount Sinai Health System, identified six distinct COVID subphenotypes on admission. Subphenotypes correlated with ICU admission, intubation, mortality and differential response to treatment.

Project description:BackgroundHyperglycemia on admission has been found to elevate risk for mortality and adverse clinical events after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but there are evidences that the relationship of blood glucose and mortality may differ between diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Prior studies in China have provided mixed results and are limited by statistical power. Here, we used data from a large, nationally representative sample of patients hospitalized with AMI in China in 2001, 2006, and 2011 to assess if admission glucose is of prognostic value in China and if this relationship differs depending on the presence or absence of diabetes.MethodsUsing a nationally representative sample of patients with AMI in China in 2001, 2006, and 2011, we categorized patients according to their glucose levels at admission (Results: Compared to patients with euglycemia (5.8%), patients with moderate hyperglycemia (13.1%, odds ratio [OR] = 2.44, 95% confidence interval [CI, 2.08-2.86]), severe hyperglycemia (21.5%, OR = 4.42, 95% CI [3.78-5.18]), and hypoglycemia (13.8%, OR = 2.59, 95% CI [1.68-4.00]), all had higher crude in-hospital mortality after AMI regardless of the presence of recognized diabetes mellitus. After adjustment for patients' characteristics and clinical status, however, the relationship between admission glucose and in-hospital mortality was different for diabetic and nondiabetic patients (P for interaction = 0.045). Among diabetic patients, hypoglycemia (OR = 3.02, 95% CI [1.20-7.63]), moderate hyperglycemia (OR = 1.75, 95% CI [1.04-2.92]), and severe hyperglycemia (OR = 2.97, 95% CI [1.87-4.71]) remained associated with elevated risk for mortality, but among nondiabetic patients, only patients with moderate hyperglycemia (OR = 2.34, 95% CI [1.93-2.84]) and severe hyperglycemia (OR = 3.92, 95% CI [3.04-5.04]) were at elevated mortality risk and not hypoglycemia (OR = 1.12, 95% CI [0.60-2.08]). This relationship was consistent across different study years (P for interaction = 0.900).ConclusionsThe relationship between admission glucose and in-hospital mortality differs for diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Hypoglycemia was a bad prognostic marker among diabetic patients alone. The study results could be used to guide risk assessment among AMI patients using admission glucose.Trial registrationwww.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01624883; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01624883.

Project description:IntroductionThis protocol concerns the evaluation of increased specialist staffing at weekends in hospitals in England. Seven-day health services are a key policy for the UK government and other health systems trying to improve use of infrastructure and resources. A particular motivation for the 7-day policy has been the observed increase in the risk of death associated with weekend admission, which has been attributed to fewer hospital specialists being available at weekends. However, the causes of the weekend effect have not been adequately characterised; many of the excess deaths associated with the 'weekend effect' may not be preventable, and the presumed benefits of improved specialist cover might be offset by the cost of implementation.Methods/designThe Bayesian-founded method we propose will consist of four major steps. First, the development of a qualitative causal model. Specialist presence can affect multiple, interacting causal processes. One or more models will be developed from the results of an expert elicitation workshop and probabilities elicited for each model and relevant model parameters. Second, systematic review of the literature. The model from the first step will provide search limits for a review to identify relevant studies. Third, a statistical model for the effects of specialist presence on care quality and patient outcomes. Fourth, valuation of outcomes. The expected net benefits of different levels of specialist intensity will then be evaluated with respect to the posterior distributions of the parameters.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the Review Subcommittee of the South West Wales REC on 11 November 2013. Informed consent was not required for accessing anonymised patient case records from which patient identifiers had been removed. The findings of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals; the outputs from this research will also form part of the project report to the HS&DR Programme Board.