ArticleHealth services research2021
Comparing the dangers of a stay in English and German hospitals for high-need patients.
Article in Health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Healthcare Resource Utilization After Surgical Treatment of Cancer: Value of Minimally Invasive Surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Developing a minimum common dataset for hip fracture audit to help countries set up national audits that can support international comparisons.The bone & joint journal · 2022Article
- Comparing the dangers of a stay in English and German hospitals for high-need patients.Health services research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate the risk of an avoidable adverse event for high-need patients in England and Germany and the causal impact that has on outcomes. DATA SOURCES: We use administrative, secondary data for all hospital inpatients in 2018. Patient records for the English National Health Service are provided by the Hospital Episode Statistics database and for the German health care system accessed through the Research Data Center of the Federal Statistical Office. STUDY
designWe calculated rates of three hospital-acquired adverse events and their causal impact on mortality and length of stay through propensity score matching and estimation of average treatment effects. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
methodsPatients were identified based on diagnoses codes and translated Patient Safety Indicators developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. PRINCIPAL
findingsFor the average hospital stay, the risk of an adverse event was 5.37% in the English National Health Service and 3.26% in the German health care system. High-need patients are more likely to experience an adverse event, driven by hospital-acquired infections (2.06%-4.45%), adverse drug reactions (2.37%-2.49%), and pressure ulcers (2.25%-0.45%). Adverse event risk is particularly high for patients with advancing illnesses (10.50%-27.11%) and the frail elderly (17.75%-28.19%). Compared to the counterfactual, high-need patients with an adverse event are more likely to die during their hospital stay and experience a longer length of stay.
conclusionsHigh-need patients are particularly vulnerable with an adverse event risking further deterioration of health status and adding resource use. Our results indicate the need to assess the costs and benefits of a hospital stay, particularly when care could be provided in settings considered less hazardous.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.