Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27143000›Full record

Observational studyBMC health services research2016

Clinical characteristics and preventable acute care spending among a high cost inpatient population.

Paul E Ronksley, Daniel M Kobewka, Jennifer A McKay, Deanna M Rothwell, Sunita Mulpuru, Alan J Forster

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
11.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Identifying factors associated with high use of acute care in Canada: a population-based retrospective study.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Determining preventable acute care spending among high-cost patients in a single-payer public health care system.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Article
  14. Observational
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Paul E RonksleyDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, T2N 4N1, AB, Canada. peronksl@ucalgary.ca.
Daniel M KobewkaDepartment of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Jennifer A McKayDepartment of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Deanna M RothwellPerformance Measurement, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Sunita MulpuruDepartment of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Alan J ForsterDepartment of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
University of Ottawa · CAOttawa Hospital · CAUniversity of Calgary · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA small proportion of patients account for the majority of health care spending. The objectives of this study were to explore the clinical characteristics, patterns of health care use, and the proportion of acute care spending deemed potentially preventable among high cost inpatients within a Canadian acute-care hospital.

methodsWe identified all individuals within the Ottawa Hospital with one or more inpatient hospitalization between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2011. Clinical characteristics and frequency of hospital encounters were captured in the information systems of the Ottawa Hospital Data Warehouse. Direct inpatient costs for each encounter were summed using case costing information and those in the upper first and fifth percentiles of the cumulative direct cost distribution were defined as extremely high cost and high cost respectively. We quantified preventable acute care spending as hospitalizations for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC) and spending attributable to difficulty discharging patients as measured by alternate level of care (ALC) status.

resultsDuring the study period, 36,892 patients had 44,066 hospitalizations. High cost patients (n = 1,844) accounted for 38 % of total inpatient spending ($122 million) and were older, more likely to be male, and had higher levels of co-morbidity compared to non-high cost patients. In over half of the high cost cohort (54 %), costs were accumulated from a single hospitalization. The majority of costs were related to nursing care and intensive care unit spending. High cost patients were more likely to have an encounter deemed to be ambulatory care sensitive compared to non-high cost inpatients (6.0 versus 2.8 %, p < 0.001). A greater proportion of inpatient spending was attributable to ALC days for high cost versus non-high cost patients (9.1 versus 4.9 %, p < 0.001).

conclusionsWithin a population of high cost inpatients, the majority of costs are attributed to a single, non-preventable, acute care episode. However, there are likely opportunities to improve hospital efficiency by focusing on different approaches to community based care directed towards specific populations.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAmbulatory CareChildChild, PreschoolComorbidityCosts and Cost AnalysisCost SavingsCritical CareDirect Service CostsEpisode of CareFemaleHealth ExpendituresAdministrative dataAmbulatory care sensitive conditionsHealthcare costHospitalization

Identifiers

PMID27143000
PMCPMC4855849
OpenAlexW2345504950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.