Dataset Information

Patterns of healthcare utilisation in children and young people: a retrospective cohort study using routinely collected healthcare data in Northwest London.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

With a growing role for health services in managing population health, there is a need for early identification of populations with high need. Segmentation approaches partition the population based on demographics, long-term conditions (LTCs) or healthcare utilisation but have mostly been applied to adults. Our study uses segmentation methods to distinguish patterns of healthcare utilisation in children and young people (CYP) and to explore predictors of segment membership.

Design

A retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Routinely collected primary and secondary healthcare data in Northwest London from the Discover database.

Participants

378 309 CYP aged 0-15 years registered to a general practice in Northwest London with 1 full year of follow-up.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Assignment of each participant to a segment defined by seven healthcare variables representing primary and secondary care attendances, and description of utilisation patterns by segment. Predictors of segment membership described by age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation and LTCs.

Results

Participants were grouped into six segments based on healthcare utilisation. Three segments predominantly used primary care, two moderate utilisation segments differed in use of emergency or elective care, and a high utilisation segment, representing 16 632 (4.4%) children accounted for the highest mean presentations across all service types. The two smallest segments, representing 13.3% of the population, accounted for 62.5% of total costs. Younger age, residence in areas of higher deprivation and the presence of one or more LTCs were associated with membership of higher utilisation segments, but 75.0% of those in the highest utilisation segment had no LTC.

Conclusions

This article identifies six segments of healthcare utilisation in CYP and predictors of segment membership. Demographics and LTCs may not explain utilisation patterns as strongly as in adults, which may limit the use of routine data in predicting utilisation and suggest children have less well-defined trajectories of service use than adults.

SUBMITTER: Beaney T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8685945 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Inpatient Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) ethnicity data are available but not always collected and data quality can be unreliable. This may have implications when assessing outcomes by ethnicity. An alternative method for assigning ethnicity is using naming algorithms. We investigate if the association between ethnicity and cancer incidence varied dependent on how ethnic group was assigned. DESIGN:Population-based cancer registry cohort study. SETTING:Yorkshire, UK. PARTICIPANTS:Cancer registrations from 1998 to 2009 in children and young people (0-29 years) from a specialist cancer register in Yorkshire, UK (n=3998) were linked to inpatient HES data to obtain recorded ethnicity. Patients' names, recorded in the cancer register, were matched to an ethnic group using the naming algorithm software Onomap. Each source of ethnicity was categorised as white, South Asian (SA) or Other, and a further two indicators were defined based on the combined ethnicities of HES and Onomap, one prioritising HES results, the other prioritising Onomap. OUTCOMES:Incidence rate ratios (IRR) between ethnic groups were compared using Poisson regression for all cancers combined, leukaemia, lymphoma and central nervous system (CNS) tumours. RESULTS:Depending on the indicator used, 7.1%-8.6% of the study population were classified as SA. For all cancers combined there were no statistically significant differences between white and SA groups using any indicator; however, for lymphomas significant differences were only evident using one of the 'Combined' indicators (IRR=1.36 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.71)), and for CNS tumours incidence was lower using three of the four indicators. For the other ethnic group the IRR for all cancers combined ranged from 0.78 (0.65 to 0.94) to 1.41 (1.23 to 1.62). CONCLUSIONS:Using different methods of assigning ethnicity can result in different estimates of ethnic variation in cancer incidence. Combining ethnicity from multiple sources results in a more complete estimate of ethnicity than the use of one single source.