Dataset Information

Utilization of in- and outpatient hospital care in Germany during the Covid-19 pandemic insights from the German-wide Helios hospital network.

ABSTRACT:

Background

During the early phase of the Covid-19 pandemic, reductions of hospital admissions with a focus on emergencies have been observed for several medical and surgical conditions, while trend data during later stages of the pandemic are scarce. Consequently, this study aims to provide up-to-date hospitalization trends for several conditions including cardiovascular, psychiatry, oncology and surgery cases in both the in- and outpatient setting.

Methods and findings

Using claims data of 86 Helios hospitals in Germany, consecutive cases with an in- or outpatient hospital admission between March 13, 2020 (the begin of the "protection" stage of the German pandemic plan) and December 10, 2020 (end of study period) were analyzed and compared to a corresponding period covering the same weeks in 2019. Cause-specific hospitalizations were defined based on the primary discharge diagnosis according to International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) or German procedure classification codes for cardiovascular, oncology, psychiatry and surgery cases. Cumulative hospitalization deficit was computed as the difference between the expected and observed cumulative admission number for every week in the study period, expressed as a percentage of the cumulative expected number. The expected admission number was defined as the weekly average during the control period. A total of 1,493,915 hospital admissions (723,364 during the study and 770,551 during the control period) were included. At the end of the study period, total cumulative hospitalization deficit was -10% [95% confidence interval -10; -10] for cardiovascular and -9% [-10; -9] for surgical cases, higher than -4% [-4; -3] in psychiatry and 4% [4; 4] in oncology cases. The utilization of inpatient care and subsequent hospitalization deficit was similar in trend with some variation in magnitude between cardiovascular (-12% [-13; -12]), psychiatry (-18% [-19; -17]), oncology (-7% [-8; -7]) and surgery cases (-11% [-11; -11]). Similarly, cardiovascular and surgical outpatient cases had a deficit of -5% [-6; -5] and -3% [-4; -3], respectively. This was in contrast to psychiatry (2% [1; 2]) and oncology cases (21% [20; 21]) that had a surplus in the outpatient sector. While in-hospital mortality, was higher during the Covid-19 pandemic in cardiovascular (3.9 vs. 3.5%, OR 1.10 [95% CI 1.06-1.15], P<0.01) and in oncology cases (4.5 vs. 4.3%, OR 1.06 [95% CI 1.01-1.11], P<0.01), it was similar in surgical (0.9 vs. 0.8%, OR 1.06 [95% CI 1.00-1.13], P = 0.07) and in psychiatry cases (0.4 vs. 0.5%, OR 1.01 [95% CI 0.78-1.31], P<0.95).

Conclusions

There have been varying changes in care pathways and in-hospital mortality in different disciplines during the Covid-19 pandemic in Germany. Despite all the inherent and well-known limitations of claims data use, this data may be used for health care surveillance as the pandemic continues worldwide. While this study provides an up-to-date analysis of utilization of hospital care in the largest German hospital network, short- and long-term consequences are unknown and deserve further studies.

SUBMITTER: Bollmann A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7993839 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: After the first COVID-19 infection wave, a constant increase of pulmonary embolism (PE) hospitalizations not linked with active PCR-confirmed COVID-19 was observed, but potential contributors to this observation are unclear. Therefore, we analyzed associations between changes in PE hospitalizations and (1) the incidence of non-COVID-19 pneumonia, (2) the use of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA), (3) volume depletion, and (4) preceding COVID-19 infection numbers in Germany. Methods: Claims data of Helios hospitals in Germany were used, and consecutive cases with a hospital admission between May 6 and December 15, 2020 (PE surplus period), were analyzed and compared to corresponding periods covering the same weeks in 2016-2019 (control period). We analyzed the number of PE cases in the target period with multivariable Poisson general linear mixed models (GLMM) including (a) cohorts of 2020 versus 2016-2019, (b) the number of cases with pneumonia, (c) CTPA, and (d) volume depletion and adjusted for age and sex. In order to associate the daily number of PE cases in 2020 with the number of preceding SARS-CoV-2 infections in Germany, we calculated the average number of daily infections (divided by 10,000) occurring between 14 up to 90 days with increasing window sizes before PE cases and modeled the data with Poisson regression. Results: There were 2,404 PE hospitalizations between May 6 and December 15, 2020, as opposed to 2,112-2,236 (total 8,717) in the corresponding 2016-2019 control periods (crude rate ratio [CRR] 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.15, P < 0.01). With the use of multivariable Poisson GLMM adjusted for age, sex, and volume depletion, PE cases were significantly associated with the number of cases with pneumonia (CRR 1.09, 95% CI 1.07-1.10, P < 0.01) and with CTPA (CRR 1.10, 95% CI 1.09-1.10, P < 0.01). The increase of PE cases in 2020 compared with the control period remained significant (CRR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.12, P < 0.01) when controlling for those factors. In the 2020 cohort, the number of preceding average daily COVID-19 infections was associated with increased PE case incidence in all investigated windows, i.e., including preceding infections from 14 to 90 days. The best model (log likelihood -576) was with a window size of 4 days, i.e., average COVID-19 infections 14-17 days before PE hospitalization had a risk of 1.20 (95% CI 1.12-1.29, P < 0.01). Conclusions: There is an increase in PE cases since early May 2020 compared to corresponding periods in 2016-2019. This surplus was significant even when controlling for changes in potential modulators such as demographics, volume depletion, non-COVID-19 pneumonia, CTPA use, and preceding COVID-19 infections. Future studies are needed (1) to investigate a potential causal link for increased risk of delayed PE with preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection and (2) to define optimal screening for SARS-CoV-2 in patients presenting with pneumonia and PE.

Project description:Background and objectivesMitochondrial diseases present as multi-system disorders requiring a comprehensive multidisciplinary approach. The data on healthcare resource utilization associated with mitochondrial diseases and the clinical drivers of these costs are limited including for the out-patient setting where the majority of the clinical care for mitochondrial disease patients occurs. We performed a cross-sectional retrospective study of out-patient healthcare resource utilization and costs for patients with a confirmed diagnosis of mitochondrial disease.MethodsWe recruited participants from the Mitochondrial Disease Clinic in Sydney and stratified them into three groups: those with mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations (Group 1), those with nuclear DNA (nDNA) mutations and the predominant phenotype of chronic progressive external ophthalmoplegia (CPEO) or optic atrophy (Group 2) and those without a confirmed genetic diagnosis but clinical criteria and muscle biopsy findings supportive of a diagnosis of mitochondrial disease (Group 3). Data was collected through retrospective chart review and out-patient costs were calculated using the Medicare Benefits Schedule.ResultsWe analyzed the data from 91 participants and found that Group 1 had the greatest average out-patient costs per person per annum ($838.02; SD 809.72). Neurological investigations were the largest driver of outpatient healthcare costs in all groups (average costs per person per annum:-Group 1: $364.11; SD 340.93, Group 2: $247.83; SD 113.86 and Group 3: $239.57; SD 145.69) consistent with the high frequency (94.5%) of neurological symptoms. Gastroenterological and cardiac-related out-patient costs were also major contributors to out-patient healthcare resource utilization in Groups 1 and 3. In Group 2, ophthalmology was the second-most resource intensive specialty ($136.85; SD 173.35). The Group 3 had the greatest average healthcare resource utilization per person over the entire duration of out-patient clinic care ($5815.86; SD 3520.40) most likely due to the lack of a molecular diagnosis and a less customized management approach.ConclusionThe drivers of healthcare resource utilization are dependent on the phenotype-genotype characteristics. Neurological, cardiac, and gastroenterological costs were the top three drivers in the out-patient clinics unless the patient had nDNA mutations with predominant phenotype of CPEO and/or optic atrophy wherein ophthalmological-related costs were the second most resource intensive driver.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged health care systems worldwide. In Germany, patients in a palliative care setting have the opportunity to receive treatment by a specialised mobile outpatient palliative care team (OPC). The given retrospective single centre analysis describes the use of OPC structures for terminally ill COVID-19 patients during the height of the pandemic in Germany and aims to characterise this exceptional OPC patient collective.MethodsFirst, death certificates were analysed in order to collect data about the place of death of all deceased COVID-19 patients (n = 471) within our local governance district. Second, we investigated whether advance care planning structures were established in local nursing homes (n = 30) during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Third, we examined patient characteristics of COVID-19 negative (n = 1579) and COVID-19 positive (n = 28) patients treated by our tertiary care centre guided OPC service.ResultsThe analysis of death certificates in our local district revealed that only 2.1% of all deceased COVID-19 patients had succumbed at their home address (n = 10/471). In contrast, 34.0% of COVID-19 patients died in nursing homes (n = 160/471), whereas 63.5% died in an inpatient hospital setting (n = 299/471). A large proportion of these hospitalised patients died on non-intensive care unit wards (38.8%). Approximately 33.0% of surveyed nursing homes had a palliative care council service and 40.0% of them offered advance care planning (ACP) structures for their nursing home residents. In our two OPC collectives we observed significant differences concerning clinical characteristics such as the Index of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] (p = 0.014), oncologic comorbidity (p = 0.004), as well as referrer and primary patient location (p = 0.001, p = 0.033).ConclusionsMost COVID-19 patients in our governance district died in an inpatient setting. However, the highest number of COVID-19 patients in our governance district who died in an outpatient setting passed away in nursing homes where palliative care structures should be further expanded. COVID-19 patients who died under the care of our OPC service had considerably fewer oncologic comorbidities. Finally, to relieve conventional health care structures, we propose the expansion of established OPC structures for treating terminally ill COVID-19 patients.