Dataset Information

Impact of oropharyngeal dysphagia on healthcare cost and length of stay in hospital: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Healthcare systems internationally are under an ever-increasing demand for services that must be delivered in an efficient, effective and affordable manner. Several patient-related and organisational factors influence health-care expenditure and utilisation, including oropharyngeal dysphagia. Here, we present a systematic review of the literature and meta-analyses investigating how oropharyngeal dysphagia influences healthcare utilisation through length of stay (LOS) and cost.

Methods

Using a standardised approach, eight databases were systematically searched for relevant articles reporting on oropharyngeal dysphagia attributable inpatient LOS and healthcare costs through June 2016. Study methodologies were critically appraised and where appropriate, extracted LOS data were analysed in an overall summary statistic.

Results

Eleven studies reported on cost data, and 23 studies were included reporting on LOS data. Descriptively, the presence of dysphagia added 40.36% to health care costs across studies. Meta-analysis of all-cause admission data from 13 cohort studies revealed an increased LOS of 2.99 days (95% CI, 2.7, 3.3). A subgroup analysis revealed that admission for stroke resulted in higher and more variable LOS of 4.73 days (95% CI, 2.7, 7.2). Presence of dysphagia across all causes was also statistically significantly different regardless of geographical location: Europe (8.42 days; 95% CI, 4.3; 12.5), North America (3.91 days; 95% CI, 3.3, 4.5). No studies included in meta-analysis were conducted in Asia.

Conclusions

This systematic review demonstrated that the presence of oropharyngeal dysphagia significantly increases healthcare utilisation and cost, highlighting the need to recognise oropharyngeal dysphagia as an important contributor to pressure on healthcare systems.

SUBMITTER: Attrill S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6090960 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) is a major disorder following stroke. OD can produce alterations in both the efficacy and safety of deglutition and may result in malnutrition, dehydration, frailty, respiratory infections and pneumonia. These complications can be avoided by early detection and treatment of OD in poststroke patients, and hospital stays, medication and mortality rates can be reduced. In addition to acute in-hospital costs from OD complications, there are other costs related to poststroke OD such as direct non-healthcare costs or indirect costs. The objective of this systematic review is to assess and summarise literature on the costs related to OD in poststroke patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A systematic review of studies on the cost of OD and its complications (aspiration, malnutrition, dehydration, aspiration pneumonia and death) in patients who had a stroke will be performed from the perspectives of the hospital, the healthcare system and/or the society. The main outcomes of interest are the costs related to poststroke OD. We will search MEDLINE, Embase and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. Studies will be included if they are partial economic evaluation studies, studies that provide information on costs in adult (>17 years) poststroke patients with OD and/or its complications (malnutrition, dehydration, frailty, respiratory infections and pneumonia) or economic evaluation studies in which the cost of this condition has been estimated. Studies will be excluded if they refer to oesophageal dysphagia or OD caused by causes other than stroke. Main study information will be presented and summarised in tables, separately for studies that provide incremental costs attributable to OD or its complications and studies that report the effect of OD or its complications on total costs of stroke, and according to the perspective from which costs were measured. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42018099977.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has placed an unprecedented strain on health systems, with rapidly increasing demand for healthcare in hospitals and intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. As the pandemic escalates, determining the resulting needs for healthcare resources (beds, staff, equipment) has become a key priority for many countries. Projecting future demand requires estimates of how long patients with COVID-19 need different levels of hospital care.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of early evidence on length of stay (LoS) of patients with COVID-19 in hospital and in ICU. We subsequently developed a method to generate LoS distributions which combines summary statistics reported in multiple studies, accounting for differences in sample sizes. Applying this approach, we provide distributions for total hospital and ICU LoS from studies in China and elsewhere, for use by the community.ResultsWe identified 52 studies, the majority from China (46/52). Median hospital LoS ranged from 4 to 53 days within China, and 4 to 21 days outside of China, across 45 studies. ICU LoS was reported by eight studies-four each within and outside China-with median values ranging from 6 to 12 and 4 to 19 days, respectively. Our summary distributions have a median hospital LoS of 14 (IQR 10-19) days for China, compared with 5 (IQR 3-9) days outside of China. For ICU, the summary distributions are more similar (median (IQR) of 8 (5-13) days for China and 7 (4-11) days outside of China). There was a visible difference by discharge status, with patients who were discharged alive having longer LoS than those who died during their admission, but no trend associated with study date.ConclusionPatients with COVID-19 in China appeared to remain in hospital for longer than elsewhere. This may be explained by differences in criteria for admission and discharge between countries, and different timing within the pandemic. In the absence of local data, the combined summary LoS distributions provided here can be used to model bed demands for contingency planning and then updated, with the novel method presented here, as more studies with aggregated statistics emerge outside China.

Project description:ImportanceMany strategies to reduce hospital length of stay (LOS) have been implemented, but few studies have evaluated hospital-led interventions focused on high-risk populations. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Learning Health System panel commissioned this study to further evaluate system-level interventions for LOS reduction.ObjectiveTo identify and synthesize evidence regarding potential systems-level strategies to reduce LOS for patients at high risk for prolonged LOS.Evidence reviewMultiple databases, including MEDLINE and Embase, were searched for English-language systematic reviews from January 1, 2010, through September 30, 2020, with updated searches through January 19, 2021. The scope of the protocol was determined with input from AHRQ Key Informants. Systematic reviews were included if they reported on hospital-led interventions intended to decrease LOS for high-risk populations, defined as those with high-risk medical conditions or socioeconomically vulnerable populations (eg, patients with high levels of socioeconomic risk, who are medically uninsured or underinsured, with limited English proficiency, or who are hospitalized at a safety-net, tertiary, or quaternary care institution). Exclusion criteria included interventions that were conducted outside of the hospital setting, including community health programs. Data extraction was conducted independently, with extraction of strength of evidence (SOE) ratings provided by systematic reviews; if unavailable, SOE was assessed using the AHRQ Evidence-Based Practice Center methods guide.FindingsOur searches yielded 4432 potential studies. We included 19 systematic reviews reported in 20 articles. The reviews described 8 strategies for reducing LOS in high-risk populations: discharge planning, geriatric assessment, medication management, clinical pathways, interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary care, case management, hospitalist services, and telehealth. Interventions were most frequently designed for older patients, often those who were frail (9 studies), or patients with heart failure. There were notable evidence gaps, as there were no systematic reviews studying interventions for patients with socioeconomic risk. For patients with medically complex conditions, discharge planning, medication management, and interdisciplinary care teams were associated with inconsistent outcomes (LOS, readmissions, mortality) across populations. For patients with heart failure, clinical pathways and case management were associated with reduced length of stay (clinical pathways: mean difference reduction, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.33 to 2.44] days; case management: mean difference reduction, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.52 to 2.04] days).Conclusions and relevanceThis systematic review found inconsistent results across all high-risk populations on the effectiveness associated with interventions, such as discharge planning, that are often widely used by health systems. This systematic review highlights important evidence gaps, such as the lack of existing systematic reviews focused on patients with socioeconomic risk factors, and the need for further research.

Project description:ObjectiveWe examined the consequences of perioperative respiratory event (PRE) in terms of hospitalization and hospital cost in children who underwent ambulatory surgery.MethodsThis subgroup analysis of a prospective cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02036021) was conducted in children aged between 1 month and 14 years who underwent ambulatory surgery between November 2012 and December 2013. Exposure was the presence of PRE either intraoperatively or in the postanesthetic care unit or both. The primary outcome was length of stay after surgery. The secondary outcome was excess hospital cost excluding surgical cost. Financial information was also compared between PRE and non-PRE. Directed acyclic graphs were used to select the covariates to be included in the multivariate regression models. The predictors of length of stay and excess hospital cost between PRE and non-PRE children are presented as adjusted odds ratio (OR) and cost ratio (CR), respectively with 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsSixty-three PRE and 249 non-PRE patients were recruited. In the univariate analysis, PRE was associated with length of stay (p = 0.004), postoperative oxygen requirement (p <0.001), and increased hospital charge (p = 0.006). After adjustments for age, history of snoring, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, type of surgery and type of payment, preoperative planned admission had an effect modification with PRE (p <0.001). The occurrence of PRE in the preoperative unplanned admission was associated with 24-fold increased odds of prolonged hospital stay (p <0.001). PRE was associated with higher excess hospital cost (CR = 1.35, p = 0.001). The mean differences in contribution margin for total procedure (per patient) (PRE vs non-PRE) differed significantly (mean = 1,523; 95% CI: 387, 2,658 baht).ConclusionPRE with unplanned admission was significantly associated with prolonged length of stay whereas PRE regardless of unplanned admission increased hospital cost by 35% in pediatric ambulatory surgery.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02036021.

Project description:Study Design Review. Objective Postoperative oropharyngeal dysphagia is one of the most common complications following anterior cervical spine surgery (ACSS). We review and summarize recent literature in order to provide a general overview of clinical signs and symptoms, assessment, incidence and natural history, pathophysiology, risk factors, treatment, prevention, and topics for future research. Methods A search of English literature regarding dysphagia following anterior cervical spine surgery was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar. The search was focused on articles published since the last review on this topic was published in 2005. Results Patients who develop dysphagia after ACSS show significant alterations in swallowing biomechanics. Patient history, physical examination, X-ray, direct or indirect laryngoscopy, and videoradiographic swallow evaluation are considered the primary modalities for evaluating oropharyngeal dysphagia. There is no universally accepted objective instrument for assessing dysphagia after ACSS, but the most widely used instrument is the Bazaz Dysphagia Score. Because dysphagia is a subjective sensation, patient-reported instruments appear to be more clinically relevant and more effective in identifying dysfunction. The causes of oropharyngeal dysphagia after ACSS are multifactorial, involving neuronal, muscular, and mucosal structures. The condition is usually transient, most often beginning in the immediate postoperative period but sometimes beginning more than 1 month after surgery. The incidence of dysphagia within one week after ACSS varies from 1 to 79% in the literature. This wide variance can be attributed to variations in surgical techniques, extent of surgery, and size of the implant used, as well as variations in definitions and measurements of dysphagia, time intervals of postoperative evaluations, and relatively small sample sizes used in published studies. The factors most commonly associated with an increased risk of oropharyngeal dysphagia after ACSS are: more levels operated, female gender, increased operative time, and older age (usually >60 years). Dysphagic patients can learn compensatory strategies for the safe and effective passage of bolus material. Certain intraoperative and postoperative techniques may decrease the incidence and/or severity of oropharyngeal dysphagia after ACSS. Conclusions Large, prospective, randomized studies are required to confirm the incidence, prevalence, etiology, mechanisms, long-term natural history, and risk factors for the development of dysphagia after ACSS, as well as to identify prevention measures. Also needed is a universal outcome measurement that is specific, reliable and valid, would include global, functional, psychosocial, and physical domains, and would facilitate comparisons among studies. Results of these studies can lead to improvements in surgical techniques and/or perioperative management, and may reduce the incidence of dysphagia after ACSS.

Project description:BackgroundAccreditation is viewed as a reputable tool to evaluate and enhance the quality of health care. However, its effect on performance and outcomes remains unclear. This review aimed to identify and analyze the evidence on the impact of hospital accreditation.MethodsWe systematically searched electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, MEDLINE (OvidSP), CDSR, CENTRAL, ScienceDirect, SSCI, RSCI, SciELO, and KCI) and other sources using relevant subject headings. We included peer-reviewed quantitative studies published over the last two decades, irrespective of its design or language. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, two reviewers independently screened initially identified articles, reviewed the full-text of potentially relevant studies, extracted necessary data, and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using a validated tool. The accreditation effects were synthesized and categorized thematically into six impact themes.ResultsWe screened a total of 17,830 studies, of which 76 empirical studies that examined the impact of accreditation met our inclusion criteria. These studies were methodologically heterogeneous. Apart from the effect of accreditation on healthcare workers and particularly on job stress, our results indicate a consistent positive effect of hospital accreditation on safety culture, process-related performance measures, efficiency, and the patient length of stay, whereas employee satisfaction, patient satisfaction and experience, and 30-day hospital readmission rate were found to be unrelated to accreditation. Paradoxical results regarding the impact of accreditation on mortality rate and healthcare-associated infections hampered drawing firm conclusions on these outcome measures.ConclusionThere is reasonable evidence to support the notion that compliance with accreditation standards has multiple plausible benefits in improving the performance in the hospital setting. Despite inconclusive evidence on causality, introducing hospital accreditation schemes stimulates performance improvement and patient safety. Efforts to incentivize and modernize accreditation are recommended to move towards institutionalization and sustaining the performance gains. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020167863.