Dataset Information

The Effect of 24/7, Digital-First, NHS Primary Care on Acute Hospital Spending: Retrospective Observational Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Digital health has the potential to revolutionize health care by improving accessibility, patient experience, outcomes, productivity, safety, and cost efficiency. In England, the NHS (National Health Service) Long Term Plan promised the right to access digital-first primary care by March 31, 2024. However, there are few global, fully digital-first providers and limited research into their effects on cost from a health system perspective.

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of highly accessible, digital-first primary care on acute hospital spending.

Methods

A retrospective, observational analysis compared acute hospital spending on patients registered to a 24/7, digital-first model of NHS primary care with that on patients registered to all other practices in North West London Collaboration of Clinical Commissioning Groups. Acute hospital spending data per practice were obtained under a freedom of information request. Three versions of NHS techniques designed to fairly allocate funding according to need were used to standardize or "weight" the practice populations; hence, there are 3 results for each year. The weighting adjusted the populations for characteristics that impact health care spending, such as age, sex, and deprivation. The total spending was divided by the number of standardized or weighted patients to give the spending per weighted patient, which was used to compare the 2 groups in the NHS financial years (FY) 2018-2019 (FY18/19) and 2019-2020 (FY19/20). FY18/19 costs were adjusted for inflation, so they were comparable with the values of FY19/20.

Results

The NHS spending on acute hospital care for 2.43 million and 2.54 million people (FY18/19 and FY19/20) across 358 practices and 49 primary care networks was £1.6 billion and £1.65 billion (a currency exchange rate of £1=US $1.38 is applicable), respectively. The spending on acute care per weighted patient for Babylon GP at Hand members was 12%, 31%, and 54% (£93, P=.047; £223, P<.001; and £389, P<.001) lower than the regional average in FY18/19 for the 3 weighting methodologies used. In FY19/20, it was 15%, 35%, and 51% (£114, P=.006; £246, P<.001; and £362, P<.001) lower. This amounted to lower costs for the Babylon GP at Hand population of £1.37, £4.40 million, and £11.6 million, respectively, in FY18/19; and £3.26 million, £9.54 million, and £18.8 million, respectively, in FY19/20.

Conclusions

Patients with access to 24/7, digital-first primary care incurred significantly lower acute hospital costs.

SUBMITTER: Winward S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8367118 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrimary Spine Care (PSC) is an innovative model for the primary management of patients with spine-related disorders (SRDs), with a focus on the use of non-pharmacological therapies which now constitute the recommended first-line approach to back pain. PSC clinicians serve as the initial or early point of contact for spine patients and utilize evidence-based spine care pathways to improve outcomes and reduce escalation of care (EoC; e.g., spinal injections, diagnostic imaging, hospitalizations, referrals to a specialist). The present study examined 6-month outcomes to evaluate the efficiency of care for patients who received PSC as compared to conventional primary care. We hypothesized that patients seen by a PSC clinician would have lower rates of EoC compared to patients who received usual care by a primary care (PC) clinician.MethodsThis was a retrospective observational study. We evaluated 6-month outcomes for two groups seen and treated for an SRD between February 01, 2017 and January 31, 2020. Patient groups were comprised of N = 1363 PSC patients (Group A) and N = 1329 PC patients (Group B). We conducted Pearson chi-square and logistic regression (adjusting for patient characteristics that were unbalanced between the two groups) to determine associations between the two groups and 6-month outcomes.ResultsWithin six months of an initial visit for an SRD, a statistically significantly smaller proportion of PSC patients utilized healthcare resources for spine care as compared to the PC patients. When adjusting for patient characteristics, those who received care from the PSC clinician were less likely within 6 months of an initial visit to be hospitalized (OR = .47, 95% CI .23-.97), fill a prescription for an opioid analgesic (OR = .43; 95% CI .29-.65), receive a spinal injection (OR = .56, 95% CI .33-.95), or have a visit with a specialist (OR = .48, 95% CI .35-.67) as compared to those who received usual primary care.ConclusionsPatients who received PSC in an academic primary care clinic experienced significantly less escalation of their spine care within 6 months of their initial visit. The PSC model may offer a more efficient approach to the primary care of spine problems for patients with SRDs, as compared to usual primary care.

Project description:Background: Hyponatremia (serum sodium concentration <135 mEq/L) is the most common electrolyte abnormality among hospitalized patients. Our aim was to study the epidemiology of hyponatremia in hospitalized patients, as well as the short-term mortality rates, the length of stay (LOS), and associated hospital costs. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 6,539 hospitalizations in the internal medicine ward of a Swiss tertiary-care teaching hospital between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2018 (42.7% women, mean age 69 years). Using serum sodium concentration, we identified hospitalizations with hyponatremia and calculated the prevalence of overall hyponatremia, admission hyponatremia (AH), hospital-acquired hyponatremia (HAH), and persistent hyponatremia (PH) at discharge. We also studied the impact of hyponatremia on 30-day readmissions, in-hospital and 30-day mortality, and hospital LOS and costs, using multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models, with normal natremia as reference. Results: Prevalence of overall hyponatremia was 32.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 31.3-33.6%], while prevalence of PH among hospitalizations with AH and HAH was 33.7% (31.7-35.8%). After multivariable adjustment, hyponatremia was associated with increased hospital costs (CHF 19,025 ± 485 vs. 14,962 ± 341, p < 0.001) and LOS (13.4 ± 0.2 vs. 10.7 ± 0.2 days, p < 0.001). Increased severity of hyponatremia was associated with higher hospital costs and LOS (p for trend <0.001). There was a trend toward more frequent 30-day readmissions associated with hyponatremia [adjusted odds ratio (OR), 1.15 (1.01-1.31), p = 0.032], mainly with PH: adjusted OR = 1.41 (1.17-1.71), p < 0.001. No association was found between severity of hyponatremia and readmissions. Hyponatremia was associated with an increase of in-hospital [adjusted OR = 1.94 (1.49-2.53), p < 0.001] and 30-day mortality: adjusted OR = 1.80 (1.44-2.24), p < 0.001. Increased severity of hyponatremia was associated with higher in-hospital and 30-day mortality (p for trend < 0.001). Conclusions: Hyponatremia is highly prevalent among hospitalized patients and associated with an increase of LOS, early hospital readmission, in-hospital and 30-day mortality, and hospital costs. PH was associated with a substantial increase of the risk of early hospital readmission and 30-day mortality.

Project description:BackgroundThe country of Spain has one of the highest incidences of COVID-19, with more than 1,000,000 cases as of the end of October 2020. Patients with a history of chronic conditions, obesity, and cancer are at greater risk from COVID-19; moreover, concerns surrounding the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin type II receptor blockers (ARBs) and its relationship to COVID-19 susceptibility have increased since the beginning of the pandemic.ObjectiveThe objectives of this study were to compare the characteristics of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 to those of patients without COVID-19 in primary care; to determine the risk factors associated with the outcome of mortality; and to determine the potential influence of certain medications, such as ACEIs and ARBs, on the mortality of patients with COVID-19.MethodsAn observational retrospective study of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in the Catalan Central Region of Spain between March 1 and August 17, 2020, was conducted. The data were obtained from the Primary Care Services Information Technologies System of the Catalan Institute of Health in Barcelona, Spain.ResultsThe study population included 348,596 patients (aged >15 years) registered in the Primary Care Services Information Technologies System of the Catalan Central Region. The mean age of the patients was 49.53 years (SD 19.42), and 31.17% of the patients were aged ≥60 years. 175,484/348,596 patients (50.34%) were women. A total of 23,844/348,596 patients (6.84%) in the population studied were diagnosed with COVID-19 during the study period, and the most common clinical conditions of these patients were hypertension (5267 patients, 22.1%) and obesity (5181 patients, 21.7%). Overall, 2680/348,596 patients in the study population (0.77%) died during the study period. The number of deaths among patients without COVID-19 was 1825/324,752 (0.56%; mean age 80.6 years, SD 13.3), while among patients diagnosed with COVID-19, the number of deaths was 855/23,844 (3.58%; mean age 83.0 years, SD 10.80) with an OR of 6.58 (95% CI 6.06-7.15).ConclusionsWe observed that women were more likely to contract COVID-19 than men. In addition, our study did not show that hypertension, obesity, or being treated with ACEIs or ARBs was linked to an increase in mortality in patients with COVID-19. Age is the main factor associated with mortality in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The UK government is pursuing policies to improve primary care access, as many patients visit accident and emergency (A and E) departments after being unable to get suitable general practice appointments. Direct admission to hospital via a general practitioner (GP) averts A and E use, and may reduce total hospital costs. It could also enhance the continuity of information between GPs and hospital doctors, possibly improving healthcare outcomes. OBJECTIVE:To determine whether primary care access is associated with the route of emergency admission-via a GP versus via an A and E department. METHODS:Retrospective analysis of national administrative data from English hospitals for 2011-2012. Adults admitted in an emergency (unscheduled) for ?1 night via a GP or an A and E department formed the study population. The measure of primary care access-the percentage of patients able to get a general practice appointment on their last attempt-was derived from a large, nationally representative patient survey. Multilevel logistic regression was used to estimate associations, adjusting for patient and admission characteristics. RESULTS:The analysis included 2?322?112 emergency admissions (81.9% via an A and E department). With a 5?unit increase in the percentage of patients able to get a general practice appointment on their last attempt, the adjusted odds of GP admission (vs A and E admission) was estimated to increase by 15% (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.17). The probability of GP admission if ?95% of appointment attempts were successful in each general practice was estimated to be 19.6%. This probability reduced to 13.6% when <80% of appointment attempts were successful. This equates to 139?673 fewer GP admissions (456?232 vs 316?559) assuming no change in the total number of admissions. Associations were consistent in direction across geographical regions of England. CONCLUSIONS:Among hospital inpatients admitted as an emergency, patients registered to more accessible general practices were more likely to have been admitted via a GP (vs an A and E department). This furthers evidence suggesting that access to general practice is related to use of emergency hospital services in England. The relative merits of the two admission routes remain unclear.

Project description:BackgroundThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services launched the 4-year Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative (CPC Classic) in 2012 and its 5-year successor, CPC Plus (CPC+), in 2017 to test whether improving primary care delivery in five areas-and providing practices with financial and technical support-reduced spending and improved quality. This is the first study to examine long-term effects of a primary care practice transformation model.ObjectiveTo test whether long-term primary care transformation-the 4-year CPC Classic and the first 2 years of its successor, CPC+-reduced hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and spending over 6 years.DesignWe used a difference-in-differences analysis to compare outcomes for beneficiaries attributed to CPC Classic practices with outcomes for beneficiaries attributed to comparison practices during the year before and 6 years after CPC Classic began.ParticipantsThe study involved 565,674 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to 502 CPC Classic practices and 1,165,284 beneficiaries attributed to 908 comparison practices, with similar beneficiary-, practice-, and market-level characteristics as the CPC Classic practices.InterventionsThe interventions required primary care practices to improve 5 care areas and supported their transformation with substantially enhanced payment, data feedback, and learning support and, for CPC+, added health information technology support.Main measuresHospitalizations (all-cause), ED visits (outpatient and total), and Medicare Part A and B expenditures.Key resultsRelative to comparison practices, beneficiaries in intervention practices experienced slower growth in hospitalizations-3.1% less in year 5 and 3.5% less in year 6 (P < 0.01) and roughly 2% (P < 0.1) slower growth each year in total ED visits during years 3 through 6. Medicare Part A and B expenditures (excluding care management fees) did not change appreciably.ConclusionsThe emergence of favorable effects on hospitalizations in years 5 and 6 suggests primary care transformation takes time to translate into lower hospitalizations. Longer tests of models are needed.