Upload
egbert-bates
View
217
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Are hospital readmissions in the elderly preventable?
Antonio Sarría-Santamera MD PhDInstitute of Health Carlos III
University of Alcalá
DUKE-NUS HSSR SEMINARMay 29th, 2015
• The Spanish health care system• Should we care about this problem?• What we did• Some reflections
Spanish Health Care System
• National Health Care System• Network of hospitals-specialists/GPs-PC centers• Population based budget• Doctors are salaried• GPS: Gate-keeping for specialists• Free at the point of service (no copayments for
medical services)• Copayment for medicines prescribed for
ambulatory patients
Prevention is worth• The condition sought should be an important health problem• There should be an accepted treatment.• Facilities for diagnosis and treatment should be available.• There should be a recognizable latent or early symptomatic stage.• There should be a suitable test or examination.• The test should be acceptable to the population.• The natural history of the condition, including development from latent to
declared disease, should be adequately understood.• There should be an agreed policy on whom to treat as patients.• The cost of case-finding (including diagnosis and treatment of patients
diagnosed) should be economically balanced in relation to possible expenditure on medical care as a whole.
• Case-finding should be a continuing process and not a “once and for all” project.
Wilson . JMG, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Geneva: WHO; 1968
ARE READMISSIONS IN THE ELDERLY A PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM?
Evolution hospital readmissions
Hospital readmissions for specific conditions
COPD HEART FAILURE
Hospital readmissions by age groups
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20124.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
15-4445-6465-74>74 años
Readmissions >74 year old
_x0004_2
001
_x0004_2
002
_x0004_2
003
_x0004_2
004
_x0004_2
005
_x0004_2
006
_x0004_2
007
_x0004_2
008
_x0004_2
009
_x0004_2
010
_x0004_2
011
_x0004_2
01210
12
14
16
18
20
22
Heart failure COPD
Complexity
• Aging, clinical conditions and functional status• Social conditions• Utilization of services• Relationships across professionals and levels
of care• Methodological approaches
• Observational study
• Systematic review of evidence
• Qualitative study
COHORT STUDY
METHODS
• Patients >74 year old discharged from HUPA• Index admission: no admission in the previous 6
months• All patients were followed for 6 months.
• Source of information:– EMR PC + hospital
RESULTS
• 1.051 included• 22,6% readmission in 6 months after the index admission
• Variables associated with an increased risk:– LOS– Number of prescriptions– Hypertension– Heart failure– Ischemic heart disease
• Variables associated with a protective effect:– Visits at nurses at PC
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWFACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH READMISSIONS
Inclusion criteria
• Prospective studies with appropriate statistical analysis, that explored the relationship between risk of readmission with clinical, socio-demographic or other factors in elderly patients (aged at least 75 years) admitted to hospital.
Exclusion criteria
• Studies that focused on patients with specific diseases or conditions (terminal patients, psychiatric patients, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, etc.)
• Studies where >50% of the patients or the average age was <75 years.
LIMITATIONS
• Methodological aspects• Different periods of time:– Short (2 weeks-30 days)– Long (2-3 months)
FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH READMISSION
1. An admission before the index admission2. Length of stay3. Multi-morbidity poly-pharmacy4. Functional capacity5. Social factors
Systematic review
• Functional status score, illness severity, co-morbidity, polypharmacy, and age.
• Campbell. Age and Ageing 2004; 33: 110–115
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS TO PREVENT READMISSION
Inclusion criteria
• Controlled trials, both randomized as well as nonrandomized, which assessed an intervention carried out during admission and/or the follow-up in order to reduce readmissions of elderly patients admitted to hospital for any medical problem (studies focusing on a specific disease were excluded).
• One of the outcome measures (not necessarily the primary one) had to be unplanned hospital readmission (absolute differences, risk ratio, odds ratio).
• Studies were excluded if more than half of participants were younger than 75 years or if the average age of all participants was less than 75 years.
LIMITATIONS• Complexity and variability of the interventions reviewed in this work, and
of their methodologies: it was not possible to make direct comparisons between studies.
• Strong variability in the indicators used to measure readmissions, which can be expressed in terms of the number (or percentage) of events or the number of patients readmitted during a given period.
• Some studies measured the number of days from the admission to the first readmission, others counted patients according to their number of readmissions.
• Distinct lengths of the follow-up period and of the measurement times, which ranged from 15 days to 1 year post discharge.
• Differences in the treatment provided to the control groups, although the majority of the studies compared the intervention with ‘usual care’ (almost never described in detail).
• Hence, this care may vary according to the health care system of each country and it may include some components of geriatric management.
EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS
1. Coordination hospital-PC2. Home care component
• Interventions with many components, involving more individuals in care delivery, and supporting patient capacity for self-care.
• Leppin AL. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Jul;174(7):1095-107
• Home or community care of patients led to a significant reduction of readmissions.
• Benbassat. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research 2013, 2:1
QUALITATIVE STUDY
Qualitative study: problems• No formal communication between PC and hospitals• EMR in PC is connected with EMR in hospitals, but there is no
information PC receive when a patient is admitted to the hospital• Information from patients when they are discharged• Patients have new medicines prescribed• PC have to reevaluate patients based on the new information• Believe that at the hospital there is a view of hospitalizations as
acute events, not as a manifestation of the continuous process of losing functional capacity
• There is the possibility of home visits, but the lack of communication limits an appropriate scheduling
• Continuity of care of a continuous process limited by this communication barrier
Qualitative study: proposals
• Individualize care to specific patient situation• Improve opportunities for home care• Self-management• Coordinated and shared care between PC-
hospitals
COMMENTS
Questions
• Are hospital readmissions in the elderly preventable?
• Hospital readmissions measure hospital quality?
• Do we really know the “natural history” of the disabilitating process related with the advancement of chronic conditions?
Are readmissions preventable?Systematic review
Complex interventions MRC
• Difficulty of standardizing the design and delivery of the interventions.
• Sensitivity to features of the local context.• Organizational and logistical difficulty of
applying experimental methods to service or policy change.
• Length and complexity of the causal chains linking intervention with outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
• Increased risk of readmission:– Short term:
1. Number of previous hospital admissions2. Length of stay
– Long term:1. Multi-morbidity/poly-pharmacy2. Functional capacity3. Social factors
• Effective preventive interventions:1. Coordination hospital-PC2. Home care component3. Self-management
Systemic perspective
• The process of care can not be fragmented into different to some extent independent components.
• Most of the factors associated with a higher risk of readmission require to take into consideration a broad systemic approach.
• The specific characteristics of how to resolve this problem are yet to be understood