Dataset Information

Does practice analysis agree with the ambulatory care sensitive conditions' list of avoidable unplanned admissions?: a cross-sectional study in the East of England.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To use significant event audits (SEAs) in primary care to determine which of a sample of emergency (unplanned) admissions were potentially avoidable; and compare with the National Health Service (NHS) list of ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs). DESIGN:Analysis of unplanned medical admissions randomly identified in secondary care. SETTING:Primary care in the East of England. PARTICIPANTS:20 general practice teams trained to use SEA on unplanned admissions to identify potentially preventable factors. INTERVENTIONS:SEA of admissions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Level of agreement between those admissions identified as potentially preventable by SEA and the NHS ACSC list. RESULTS:132 (26%) of randomly selected patients with unplanned admissions gave consent and an SEA was performed by their primary practice team. 130 SEA reports had sufficient data for our analysis. Practices concluded that 17 (13%) admissions were potentially preventable. The NHS ACSC list identified 36 admissions (28%) as potentially preventable. There was a low level of agreement between the practices and the NHS list as to which admissions were preventable (kappa=0.253). The ACSC list consisted mainly of respiratory admissions whereas the practice list identified a wider range of cases and identified context-specific factors as important. CONCLUSIONS:There was disagreement between the NHS list and practice conclusions of potentially avoidable admissions. The SEAs suggest that the pathway into unplanned admission may be less dependent on the condition than on context-specific factors, and the assumption that unplanned admissions for ACSCs are reasonable indicators of performance for primary care may not be valid.

SUBMITTER: Fleetcroft R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5931280 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does practice analysis agree with the ambulatory care sensitive conditions' list of avoidable unplanned admissions?: a cross-sectional study in the East of England.

Fleetcroft Robert R Hardcastle Antonia A Steel Nicholas N Price Gill M GM Purdy Sarah S Lipp Alistair A Myint Phyo Kyaw PK Howe Amanda A

BMJ open 20180428 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>To use significant event audits (SEAs) in primary care to determine which of a sample of emergency (unplanned) admissions were potentially avoidable; and compare with the National Health Service (NHS) list of ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs).<h4>Design</h4>Analysis of unplanned medical admissions randomly identified in secondary care.<h4>Setting</h4>Primary care in the East of England.<h4>Participants</h4>20 general practice teams trained to use SEA on unplanned ad ...[more]

PMID: 29705762

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:In 2016, the Irish acute hospital system operated well above internationally recommended occupancy targets. Investment in primary care can prevent hospital admissions of ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs). OBJECTIVE:To measure the impact of ACSCs on acute hospital capacity in the Irish public system and identify specific care areas for enhanced primary care provision. DESIGN:National Hospital In-patient Enquiry System data were used to calculate 2011-2016 standardised bed day rates for selected ACSC conditions. A prioritisation exercise was undertaken to identify the most significant contributors to bed days within our hospital system. Poisson regression was used to determine change over time using incidence rate ratios (IRR). RESULTS:In 2016 ACSCs accounted for almost 20% of acute public hospital beds (n=871 328 bed days) with adults over 65 representing 69.1% (n=602 392) of these. Vaccine preventable conditions represented 39.1% of ACSCs. Influenza and pneumonia were responsible for 99.8% of these, increasing by 8.2% (IRR: 1.02; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.03) from 2011 to 2016. Pyelonephritis represented 47.6% of acute ACSC bed days, increasing by 46.5% (IRR: 1.07; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.08) over the 5 years examined. CONCLUSIONS:Prioritisation for targeted investment in integrated care programmes is enabled through analysis of ACSC's in terms of acute hospital bed days. This analysis demonstrates that primary care investment in integrated care programmes for respiratory ACSC's from prevention to rehabilitation at scale could assist with bed capacity in acute hospitals in Ireland. In adults 65 years and over, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients, the current analysis supports targeting community based pulmonary rehabilitation including pneumococcal and influenza vaccination programmes in order to reduce the burden of infection and hospitalisations. Further exploration of pyelonephritis is necessary in order to ascertain patient profile and appropriateness of admissions.

Project description:Reducing unplanned hospital admissions is a key priority within the UK and other healthcare systems, however it remains uncertain how this can be achieved. This paper explores the relationship between unplanned ambulatory care sensitive condition (ACSC) admission rates and population, general practice and hospital characteristics. Additionally, we investigated if these factors had a differential impact across 28 conditions.We used the English Hospital Episode Statistics to calculate the number of unplanned ACSC hospital admissions for 28 conditions at 8,029 general practices during 2011/12. We used multilevel negative binomial regression to estimate the influence of population (deprivation), general practice (size, access, continuity, quality, A&E proximity) and hospital (bed availability, % day cases) characteristics on unplanned admission rates after adjusting for age, sex and chronic disease prevalence.Practices in deprived areas (at the 90th centile) had 16% (95% confidence interval: 14 to 18) higher admission rates than those in affluent areas (10th centile). Practices with poorer care continuity (9%; 8 to 11), located closest to A&E (8%; 6 to 9), situated in areas with high inpatient bed availability (14%; 10 to 18) or in areas with a larger proportion of day case admissions (17%; 12 to 21) had more admissions. There were smaller associations for primary care access, clinical quality, and practice size. The strength of associations varied by ACSC. For example, deprivation was most strongly associated with alcohol related diseases and COPD admission rates, while continuity of primary care was most strongly associated with admission rates for chronic diseases such as hypertension and iron-deficiency anaemia.The drivers of unplanned ACSC admission rates are complex and include population, practice and hospital factors. The importance of these varies markedly across conditions suggesting that multifaceted interventions are required to avoid hospital admissions and reduce costs. Several of the most important drivers of admissions are largely beyond the control of GPs. However, strategies to improve primary care continuity and avoid unnecessary short-stay admissions could lead to improved efficiency.

Project description:ObjectiveWe aimed to spatially describe hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC) in England at small-area geographical level and assess whether recorded practice performance under one of the world's largest primary care pay-for-performance schemes led to reductions in these potentially avoidable hospitalisations for chronic conditions incentivised in the scheme.SettingWe obtained numbers of ACSC hospital admissions from the Hospital Episode Statistics database and information on recorded practice performance from the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) administrative dataset for 2015/2016. We fitted three sets of negative binomial models to examine ecological associations between incentivised ACSC admissions, general practice performance, deprivation, urbanity and other sociodemographic characteristics.ResultsHospital admissions for QOF incentivised ACSCs varied within and between regions, with clusters of high numbers of hospital admissions for incentivised ACSCs identified across England. Our models indicated a very small effect of the QOF on reducing admissions for incentivised ACSCs (0.993, 95% CI 0.990 to 0.995), however, other factors, such as deprivation (1.021, 95% CI 1.020 to 1.021) and urbanicity (0.875, 95% CI 0.862 to 0.887), were far more important in explaining variations in admissions for ACSCs. People in deprived areas had a higher risk of being admitted in hospital for an incentivised ACSC condition.ConclusionSpatial analysis based on routinely collected data can be used to identify areas with high rates of potentially avoidable hospital admissions, providing valuable information for targeting resources and evaluating public health interventions. Our findings suggest that the QOF had a very small effect on reducing avoidable hospitalisation for incentivised conditions. Material deprivation and urbanicity were the strongest predictors of the variation in ACSC rates for all QOF incentivised conditions across England.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Hospitalizations for ambulatory care sensitive conditions are commonly used to evaluate primary health care performance, as the hospital admission could be avoided if care was timely and adequate. Previous evidence indicates that avoidable hospitalizations carry a substantial direct financial burden in some countries. However, no attention has been given to the economic burden on society they represent. The aim of this study is to estimate the direct and lost productivity costs of avoidable hospital admissions in Portugal. METHODS:Hospitalizations occurring in Portugal in 2015 were analyzed. Avoidable hospitalizations were defined and their associated costs and years of potential life lost were calculated. Direct costs were obtained using official hospitalization prices. For lost productivity, there were estimated costs for absenteeism and premature death. Costs were analyzed by components, by conditions and by variations on estimation parameters. RESULTS:The total estimated cost associated with avoidable hospital admissions was €250 million (€2515 per hospitalization), corresponding to 6% of the total budget of public hospitals in Portugal. These hospitalizations led to 109,641?years of potential life lost. Bacterial pneumonia, congestive heart failure and urinary tract infection accounted for 77% of the overall costs. Nearly 82% of avoidable hospitalizations were in patients aged 65?years or older, therefore did not account for the lost productivity costs. Nearly 84% of the total cost comes from the direct cost of the hospitalization. Lost productivity costs are estimated to be around €40 million. CONCLUSION:The age distribution of avoidable hospitalizations had a significant effect on costs components. Not only did hospital admissions have a substantial direct economic impact, they also imposed a considerable economic burden on society. Substantial financial resources could potentially be saved if the country reduced avoidable hospitalizations.

Dataset Information

Does practice analysis agree with the ambulatory care sensitive conditions' list of avoidable unplanned admissions?: a cross-sectional study in the East of England.

Publications

Does practice analysis agree with the ambulatory care sensitive conditions' list of avoidable unplanned admissions?: a cross-sectional study in the East of England.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets