Dataset Information

Effects of hospital funding reform on wait times for hip fracture surgery: a population-based interrupted time-series analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Health care funding reforms are being used worldwide to improve system performance but may invoke unintended consequences. We assessed the effects of introducing a targeted hospital funding model, based on fixed price and volume, for hip fractures. We hypothesized the policy change was associated with reduction in wait times for hip fracture surgery, increase in wait times for non-hip fracture surgery, and increase in the incidence of after-hours hip fracture surgery.

Methods

This was a population-based, interrupted time series analysis of 49,097 surgeries for hip fractures, 10,474 for ankle fractures, 1,594 for tibial plateau fractures, and 40,898 for appendectomy at all hospitals in Ontario, Canada between April 2012 and March 2017. We used segmented regression analysis of interrupted monthly time series data to evaluate the impact of funding reform enacted April 1, 2014 on wait time for hip fracture repair (from hospital presentation to surgery) and after-hours provision of surgery (occurring between 1700 and 0700 h). To assess potential adverse consequences of the reform, we also evaluated two control procedures, ankle and tibial plateau fracture surgery. Appendectomy served as a non-orthopedic tracer for assessment of secular trends.

Results

The difference (95 % confidence interval) between the actual mean wait time and the predicted rate had the policy change not occurred was - 0.46 h (-3.94 h, 3.03 h) for hip fractures, 1.46 h (-3.58 h, 6.50 h) for ankle fractures, -3.22 h (-39.39 h, 32.95 h) for tibial plateau fractures, and 0.33 h (-0.57 h, 1.24 h) for appendectomy (Figure 1; Table 3). The difference (95 % confidence interval) between the actual and predicted percentage of surgeries performed after-hours - 0.90 % (-3.91 %, 2.11 %) for hip fractures, -3.54 % (-11.25 %, 4.16 %) for ankle fractures, 7.09 % (-7.97 %, 22.14 %) for tibial plateau fractures, and 1.07 % (-2.45 %, 4.59 %) for appendectomy.

Conclusions

We found no significant effects of a targeted hospital funding model based on fixed price and volume on wait times or the provision of after-hours surgery. Other approaches for improving hip fracture wait times may be worth pursuing instead of funding reform.

SUBMITTER: Pincus D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8201723 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Although wait times for hip fracture surgery have been linked to mortality and are being used as quality-of-care indicators worldwide, controversy exists about the duration of the wait that leads to complications. Objective:To use population-based wait-time data to identify the optimal time window in which to conduct hip fracture surgery before the risk of complications increases. Design, Setting, and Participants:Population-based, retrospective cohort study of adults undergoing hip fracture surgery between April 1, 2009, and March 31, 2014, at 72 hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Risk-adjusted restricted cubic splines modeled the probability of each complication according to wait time. The inflection point (in hours) when complications began to increase was used to define early and delayed surgery. To evaluate the robustness of this definition, outcomes among propensity-score matched early and delayed surgical patients were compared using percent absolute risk differences (RDs, with 95% CIs). Exposure:Time elapsed from hospital arrival to surgery (in hours). Main Outcomes and Measures:Mortality within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included a composite of mortality or other medical complications (myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and pneumonia). Results:Among 42 230 patients with hip fracture (mean [SD] age, 80.1 years [10.7], 70.5% women) who met study entry criteria, overall mortality at 30 days was 7.0%. The risk of complications increased when wait times were greater than 24 hours, irrespective of the complication considered. Compared with 13 731 propensity-score matched patients who received surgery earlier, 13 731 patients who received surgery after 24 hours had a significantly higher risk of 30-day mortality (898 [6.5%] vs 790 [5.8%]; % absolute RD, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.23-1.35) and the composite outcome (1680 [12.2%]) vs 1383 [10.1%]; % absolute RD, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.43-2.89). Conclusions and Relevance:Among adults undergoing hip fracture surgery, increased wait time was associated with a greater risk of 30-day mortality and other complications. A wait time of 24 hours may represent a threshold defining higher risk.

Project description:ImportanceHospital funding reforms for prostate cancer surgery may have altered management of localized prostate cancer in the province of Ontario, Canada.ObjectiveTo determine whether changes in hospital funding policy aimed at improving health care quality and value were associated with changes in the management of localized prostate cancer or the characteristics of patients receiving radical prostatectomy (RP) for localized prostate cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based, interrupted time series study used linked population-based administrative data regarding adults in Ontario with incidental localized prostate cancer and those who underwent RP for localized prostate cancer. Patients who underwent RP were compared with patients who underwent surgical procedures for localized renal cell carcinoma, which was not included in the policy change but was subjected to similar secular trends and potential confounders. Monthly outcomes were analyzed using interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models. Data were collected from January 2011 to November 2017 and analyzed in January 2019.ExposuresFunding policy change in April 2015 from flexible block funding for all hospital-based care to prespecified payment amounts per procedure for treatment of localized prostate cancer, coupled with the dissemination of a diagnosis-specific handbook outlining best practices.Main outcomes and measuresInitial management (RP vs radiation therapy vs active surveillance) and tumor risk profiles per management strategy among incident cases of localized prostate cancer. Additional outcomes were case volume, mean length of stay, proportion of patients returning to hospital or emergency department within 30 days, proportion of patients older than 65 years, mean Charlson Comorbidity Index, and proportion of minimally invasive surgical procedures among patients undergoing RP for localized prostate cancer.ResultsA total of 33?128 patients with incident localized prostate cancer (median [interquartile range (IQR)] age, 67 [61-73] years; median [IQR] cases per monthly observation interval, 466 [420-516]), 17?159 patients who received radical prostatectomy (median [IQR] age, 63 [58-68] years; median [IQR] cases per monthly observation interval, 209 [183-225]), and 5762 individuals who underwent surgery for renal cell carcinoma (median [IQR] age, 62 [53-70] years; median [IQR] cases per monthly observation interval, 71 [61-77]) were identified. By the end of the observation period, radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy were used in comparable proportions (30.3% and 28.9%, respectively) and included only a small fraction of low-risk patients (6.4% and 2.9%, respectively). No statistically significant association of the funding policy change with most outcomes was found.Conclusions and relevanceThe implementation of funding reform for hospitals offering RP was not associated with changes in the management of localized prostate cancer, although it may have encouraged more appropriate selection of patients for RP. Mostly preexisting trends toward guideline-conforming practice were observed. Co-occurring policy changes and/or guideline revisions may have weakened signals from the policy change.

Project description:BackgroundAs in many health care systems, some Canadian jurisdictions have begun shifting away from global hospital budgets. Payment for episodes of care has begun to be implemented. Starting in 2012, the Province of Ontario implemented hospital funding reforms comprising three elements: Global Budgets; Health Based Allocation Method (HBAM); and Quality-Based Procedures (QBP). This evaluation focuses on implementation of QBPs, a procedure/diagnosis-specific funding approach involving a pre-set price per episode of care coupled with best practice clinical pathways. We examined whether or not there was consensus in understanding of the program theory underpinning QBPs and how this may have influenced full and effective implementation of this innovative funding model.MethodsWe undertook a formative evaluation of QBP implementation. We used an embedded case study method and in-depth, one-on-one, semi-structured, telephone interviews with key informants at three levels of the health care system: Designers (those who designed the QBP policy); Adoption Supporters (organizations and individuals supporting adoption of QBPs); and Hospital Implementers (those responsible for QBP implementation in hospitals). Thematic analysis involved an inductive approach, incorporating Framework analysis to generate descriptive and explanatory themes that emerged from the data.ResultsFive main findings emerged from our research: (1) Unbeknownst to most key informants, there was neither consistency nor clarity over time among QBP designers in their understanding of the original goal(s) for hospital funding reform; (2) Prior to implementation, the intended hospital funding mechanism transitioned from ABF to QBPs, but most key informants were either unaware of the transition or believe it was intentional; (3) Perception of the primary goal(s) of the policy reform continues to vary within and across all levels of key informants; (4) Four years into implementation, the QBP funding mechanism remains misunderstood; and (5) Ongoing differences in understanding of QBP goals and funding mechanism have created challenges with implementation and difficulties in measuring success.ConclusionsPolicy drift and policy layering affected both the goal and the mechanism of action of hospital funding reform. Lack of early specification in both policy goals and hospital funding mechanism exposed the reform to reactive changes that did not reflect initial intentions. Several challenges further exacerbated implementation of complex hospital funding reforms, including a prolonged implementation schedule, turnover of key staff, and inconsistent messaging over time. These factors altered the trajectory of the hospital funding reforms and created confusion amongst those responsible for implementation. Enacting changes to hospital funding policy through a process that is transparent, collaborative, and intentional may increase the likelihood of achieving intended effects.