Healthcare use and costs in the last six months of life by level of care and cause of death.

BACKGROUND: Existing knowledge on healthcare use and costs in the last months of life is often limited to one patient group (i.e., cancer patients) and one level of healthcare (i.e., secondary care). Consequently, decision-makers lack knowledge in order to make informed decisions about the allocation of healthcare resources for all patients. Our aim is to elaborate the understanding of resource use and costs in the last six months of life by describing healthcare use and costs for all causes of death and by all levels of formal care. METHOD: Using five national registers, we gained access to patient-level data for all individuals who died in Norway between 2009 and 2013. We described healthcare use and costs for all levels of formal care-namely primary, secondary, and home- and community-based care -in the last six months of life, both in total and differentiated across three time periods (6-4 months, 3-2 months, and 1-month before death). Our analysis covers all causes of death categorized in ten ICD-10 categories. RESULTS: During their last six months of life, individuals used an average of healthcare resources equivalent to €46,000, ranging from €32,000 (Injuries) to €64,000 (Diseases of the nervous system and sense organs). In terms of care level, 63% of healthcare resources were used in home- and community-based care (i.e., in-home nursing, practical assistance, or nursing home care), 35% in secondary care (mostly hospital care), and 2% in primary care (i.e., general practitioners). The amount and level of care varied by cause of death and by time to death. The proportion of home- and community-based care which individuals received during their last six months of life varied from 38% for cancer patients to 92% for individuals dying with mental diseases. The shorter the time to death, the more resources were needed: nearly 40% of all end-of-life healthcare costs were expended in the last month of life across all causes of death. The composition of care also differed depending on age. Individuals aged 80 years and older used more home- and community-based care (77%) than individuals dying at younger ages (40%) and less secondary care (old: 21% versus young: 57%). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis provides valuable evidence on how much healthcare individuals receive in their last six months of life and the associated costs, broken down by level of care and cause of death. Healthcare use and costs varied considerably by cause of death, but were generally higher the closer a person was to death. Our findings enable decision-makers to make more informed resource-allocation decisions and healthcare planners to better anticipate future healthcare needs.

Till death do us part: the effect of marital status on health care utilization and costs at end-of-life. A register study on all colorectal cancer decedents in Norway between 2009 and 2013.

BACKGROUND: Economic analyses of end-of-life care often focus on single aspects of care in selected cohorts leading to limited knowledge on the total level of care required to patients at their end-of-life. We aim at describing the living situation and full range of health care provided to patients at their end-of-life, including how informal care affects formal health care provision, using the case of colorectal cancer. METHODS: All colorectal cancer decedents between 2009 and 2013 in Norway (n = 7695) were linked to six national registers. The registers included information on decedents' living situation (days at home, in short- or long-term institution or in the hospital), their total health care utilization and costs in the secondary, primary and home- and community-based care setting. The effect of informal care was assessed through marital status (never married, currently married, or previously married) using regression analyses (negative binominal, two-part models and generalized linear models), controlling for age, gender, comorbidities, education, income, time since diagnosis and year of death. RESULTS: The average patient spent four months at home, while he or she spent 27 days in long-term institutions, 16 days in short-term institutions, and 21 days in the hospital. Of the total costs (~NOK 400,000), 58, 3 and 39% were from secondary carers (hospitals), primary carers (general practitioners and emergency rooms) and home- and community-based carers (home care and nursing homes), respectively. Compared to the never married, married patients spent 30 more days at home and utilized less home- and community-based care, but more health care services at the secondary and primary health care level. Their total healthcare costs were significantly lower (-NOK 65,621) than the never married. We found similar, but weaker, patterns for those who had been married previously. CONCLUSION: End-of-life care is primarily provided in the secondary and home-and community-based care level, and informal caregivers have a substantial influence on formal end-of-life care provision. Excluding aspects of care such as home and community-based care or informal care in economic analyses of end-of-life care provides a biased picture of the total resources required, and might lead to inefficient resource allocations.

Intravenous Patient-controlled Analgesia Versus Thoracic Epidural Analgesia After Open Liver Surgery: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Noninferiority Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial to investigate if intravenous, multimodal, patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) could be noninferior to multimodal thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) in patients undergoing open liver surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The increasing use of minimally invasive techniques and fast track protocols have questioned the position of epidural analgesia as the optimal method of pain management after abdominal surgery. METHODS: Patients operated with open liver resection between February 2012 and February 2016 were randomly assigned to receive either IV-PCA enhanced with ketorolac/diclofenac (IV-PCA, n = 66) or TEA (n = 77) within an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol. Noninferiority would be declared if the mean pain score on the numeric rating scale (NRS) for postoperative days (PODs) 0 to 5 in the IV-PCA group was no worse than the mean pain score in the TEA group by a margin of <1 point on an 11-point scale (0-10). RESULTS: The primary endpoint, mean NRS pain score was 1.7 in the IV-PCA group and 1.6 in the TEA group, establishing noninferiority. Pain scores were lower in the TEA group on PODs 0 and 1, but higher or equal on PODs 2 and 5. Postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter for patients in the IV-PCA group (74 vs 104 h, P < 0.001). The total opioid consumption during the first 3 days was significantly lower in the IV-PCA group. CONCLUSIONS: IV-PCA was noninferior to TEA for the treatment of postoperative pain in patients undergoing open liver resection.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: The OSLO-COMET Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To perform the first randomized controlled trial to compare laparoscopic and open liver resection. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Laparoscopic liver resection is increasingly used for the surgical treatment of liver tumors. However, high-level evidence to conclude that laparoscopic liver resection is superior to open liver resection is lacking. METHODS: Explanatory, assessor-blinded, single center, randomized superiority trial recruiting patients from Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway from February 2012 to January 2016. A total of 280 patients with resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic (n = 133) or open (n = 147) parenchyma-sparing liver resection. The primary outcome was postoperative complications within 30 days (Accordion grade 2 or higher). Secondary outcomes included cost-effectiveness, postoperative hospital stay, blood loss, operation time, and resection margins. RESULTS: The postoperative complication rate was 19% in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 31% in the open-surgery group (12 percentage points difference [95% confidence interval 1.67-21.8; P = 0.021]). The postoperative hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic surgery (53 vs 96 hours, P < 0.001), whereas there were no differences in blood loss, operation time, and resection margins. Mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly from the laparoscopic group (0 patients) to the open group (1 patient). In a 4-month perspective, the costs were equal, whereas patients in the laparoscopic-surgery group gained 0.011 quality-adjusted life years compared to patients in the open-surgery group (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing parenchyma-sparing liver resection for colorectal metastases, laparoscopic surgery was associated with significantly less postoperative complications compared to open surgery. Laparoscopic resection was cost-effective compared to open resection with a 67% probability. The rate of free resection margins was the same in both groups. Our results support the continued implementation of laparoscopic liver resection.

Nursing intensity and costs of nurse staffing demonstrated by the RAFAELA system: liver vs. kidney transplant recipients.

AIM: To compare nursing intensity and nurse staffing costs for liver transplant (LTx) vs. kidney transplant (KTx) patients through the use of the RAFAELA system (the OPCq instrument). BACKGROUND: High-quality patient care correlates with the correct allocation of nursing staff. Valid systems for obtaining data on nursing intensity, in relation to actual patient care needs, are needed to ensure correct staffing. METHODS: A prospective, comparative study of 85 liver and 85 kidney transplant patients. Nursing intensity was calculated using the Oulu Patient Classification (OPCq) instrument. The cost per nursing intensity point was calculated by dividing annual total nursing wage costs with annual total nursing intensity points. RESULTS: The results showed significantly higher nursing intensity per day for liver transplant patients compared to kidney transplant patients. The length of stay was the most important variable in relation to nursing intensity points per day. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated differences in nursing intensity and nurse staffing costs between the two patient groups. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: When defending nurse staffing decisions, it is essential that nurse managers have evidence-based knowledge of nursing intensity and nurse staffing costs.

Open versus laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (the Oslo-CoMet Study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection is used in specialized centers all over the world. However, laparoscopic liver resection has never been compared with open liver resection in a prospective, randomized trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The Oslo-CoMet Study is a randomized trial into laparoscopic versus open liver resection for the surgical management of hepatic colorectal metastases. The primary outcome is 30-day perioperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes include 5-year survival (overall, disease-free and recurrence-free), resection margins, recurrence pattern, postoperative pain, health-related quality of life, and evaluation of the inflammatory response. A cost-utility analysis of replacing open surgery with laparoscopic surgery will also be performed. The study includes all resections for colorectal liver metastases, except formal hemihepatectomies, resections where reconstruction of vessels/bile ducts is necessary and resections that need to be combined with ablation. All patients will participate in an enhanced recovery after surgery program. A biobank of liver and tumor tissue will be established and molecular analysis will be performed. DISCUSSION: After 35 months of recruitment, 200 patients have been included in the trial. Molecular and immunology data are being analyzed. Results for primary and secondary outcome measures will be presented following the conclusion of the study (late 2015). The Oslo-CoMet Study will provide the first level 1 evidence on the benefits of laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered in ClinicalTrals.gov (NCT01516710) on 19 January 2012.