Indirect effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital mortality in patients with hip fracture: a competing risk survival analysis using linked administrative data.

BACKGROUND: Hip fracture is a leading cause of disability and mortality among older people. During the COVID-19 pandemic, orthopaedic care pathways in the National Health Service in England were restructured to manage pressures on hospital capacity. We examined the indirect consequences of the pandemic for hospital mortality among older patients with hip fracture, admitted from care homes or the community. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of linked care home and hospital inpatient data for patients with hip fracture aged 65 years and over admitted to hospitals in England during the first year of the pandemic (1 March 2020 to 28 February 2021) or during the previous year. We performed survival analysis, adjusting for case mix and COVID-19 infection, and considered live discharge as a competing risk. We present cause-specific hazard ratios (HRCS) for the effect of admission year on hospital mortality risk. RESULTS: During the first year of the pandemic, there were 55 648 hip fracture admissions: a 5.2% decrease on the previous year. 9.5% of patients had confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Hospital stays were substantially shorter (p<0.05), and there was a higher daily chance of discharge (HRCS 1.40, 95% CI 1.38 to 1.41). Overall hip fracture inpatient mortality increased (7.2% in 2020/2021 vs 6.4% in 2019/2020), but patients without concomitant COVID-19 infection had lower mortality rates compared with the year before (5.3%). Admission during the pandemic was associated with a 11% increase in the daily risk of hospital death for patients with hip fracture (HRCS 1.11, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.16). CONCLUSIONS: Although COVID-19 infections led to increases in hospital mortality, overall hospital mortality risk for older patients with hip fracture remained largely stable during the first year of the pandemic.

Optimal national prioritization policies for hospital care during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

In response to unprecedented surges in the demand for hospital care during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, health systems have prioritized patients with COVID-19 to life-saving hospital care to the detriment of other patients. In contrast to these ad hoc policies, we develop a linear programming framework to optimally schedule elective procedures and allocate hospital beds among all planned and emergency patients to minimize years of life lost. Leveraging a large dataset of administrative patient medical records, we apply our framework to the National Health Service in England and show that an extra 50,750-5,891,608 years of life can be gained compared with prioritization policies that reflect those implemented during the pandemic. Notable health gains are observed for neoplasms, diseases of the digestive system, and injuries and poisoning. Our open-source framework provides a computationally efficient approximation of a large-scale discrete optimization problem that can be applied globally to support national-level care prioritization policies.

Weekend admissions may be associated with poorer recording of long-term comorbidities: a prospective study of emergency admissions using administrative data.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have investigated the presence of a 'weekend effect' in mortality following hospital admission, and these frequently use diagnostic codes from administrative data for information on comorbidities for risk adjustment. However, it is possible that coding practice differs between week and weekend. We assess patients with a confirmed history of certain long-term health conditions and investigate how well these are recorded in subsequent week and weekend admissions. METHODS: We selected six long-term conditions that are commonly assessed when risk-adjusting mortality rates, via the Charlson and Elixhauser indices. Using Hospital Episode Statistics data from England for the period April 2009 to March 2011, we identified patients with the condition recorded at least twice, on separate emergency admissions. Then we assessed how often each condition was recorded on subsequent emergency admissions between April 2011 and March 2013. We then compared coding between week and weekend admissions using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratifying by hospital. RESULTS: We studied 111,457 patients with chronic pulmonary disease, 106,432 with diabetes, 36,447 with congestive heart failure, 30,996 with dementia, 7808 with hemiplegia or paraplegia and 5877 with metastatic cancer. Across the entire week, between April 2011 and March 2013, coding completeness ranged from 89% for diabetes to 43% for hemiplegia/paraplegia. Compared with weekday admissions, congestive heart failure was less likely to be recorded as a secondary diagnosis at the weekend (odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI, 0.88 to 0.97), with smaller but statistically significant differences also detected for chronic pulmonary disease (odds ratio 0.96, 95% CI, 0.93 to 0.99) and diabetes (odds ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99). There was no statistically significant difference in recording between week and weekend admissions for dementia (odds ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11), hemiplegia/paraplegia (odds ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.10) or metastatic cancer (odds ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.20). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term conditions are often not recorded on administrative data and the lack of recording may be worse for weekend admissions. Studies of the weekend effect that rely on administrative data might have underestimated the health burden of patients, particularly if admitted at the weekend.

Cost-effectiveness of national mandatory screening of all admissions to English National Health Service hospitals for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a mathematical modelling study.

BACKGROUND: In December, 2010, National Health Service (NHS) England introduced national mandatory screening of all admissions for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this policy, from a regional or national health-care decision makers' perspective, compared with alternative screening strategies. METHODS: We used an individual-based dynamic transmission model parameterised with national MRSA audit data to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of admission screening of patients in English NHS hospitals compared with five alternative strategies (including no screening, checklist-activated screening, and high-risk specialty-based screening), accompanied by patient isolation and decolonisation, over a 5 year time horizon. We evaluated strategies for different NHS hospital types (acute, teaching, and specialist), MRSA prevalence, and transmission potentials using probabilistic sensitivity analyses. FINDINGS: Compared with no screening, mean cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of screening all admissions was £89,000-148,000 (range £68,000-222,000), and this strategy was consistently more costly and less effective than alternatives for all hospital types. At a £30,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold and current prevalence, only the no-screening strategy was cost effective. The next best strategies were, in acute and teaching hospitals, targeting of high-risk specialty admissions (30-40% chance of cost-effectiveness; mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs] £45,200 [range £35,300-61,400] and £48,000/QALY [£34,600-74,800], respectively) and, in specialist hospitals, screening these patients plus risk-factor-based screening of low-risk specialties (a roughly 20% chance of cost-effectiveness; mean ICER £62,600/QALY [£48,000-89,400]). As prevalence and transmission increased, targeting of high-risk specialties became the optimum strategy at the NHS willingness-to-pay threshold (£30,000/QALY). Switching from screening all admissions to only high-risk specialty admissions resulted in a mean reduction in total costs per year (not considering uncertainty) of £2·7 million per acute hospital, £2·9 million per teaching, and £474,000 per specialist hospital for a minimum rise in infections (about one infection per year per hospital). INTERPRETATION: Our results show that screening all admissions for MRSA is unlikely to be cost effective in England at the current NHS willingness-to-pay threshold, and our findings informed modified guidance to NHS England in 2014. Screening admissions to high-risk specialties is likely to represent better resource use in terms of cost per QALY gained. FUNDING: UK Department of Health.

The national one week prevalence audit of universal meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) admission screening 2012.

INTRODUCTION: The English Department of Health introduced universal MRSA screening of admissions to English hospitals in 2010. It commissioned a national audit to review implementation, impact on patient management, admission prevalence and extra yield of MRSA identified compared to "high-risk" specialty or "checklist-activated" screening (CLAS) of patients with MRSA risk factors. METHODS: National audit May 2011. Questionnaires to infection control teams in all English NHS acute trusts, requesting number patients admitted and screened, new or previously known MRSA; MRSA point prevalence; screening and isolation policies; individual risk factors and patient management for all new MRSA patients and random sample of negatives. RESULTS: 144/167 (86.2%) trusts responded. Individual patient data for 760 new MRSA patients and 951 negatives. 61% of emergency admissions (median 67.3%), 81% (median 59.4%) electives and 47% (median 41.4%) day-cases were screened. MRSA admission prevalence: 1% (median 0.9%) emergencies, 0.6% (median 0.4%) electives, 0.4% (median 0%) day-cases. Approximately 50% all MRSA identified was new. Inpatient MRSA point prevalence: 3.3% (median 2.9%). 104 (77%) trusts pre-emptively isolated patients with previous MRSA, 63 (35%) pre-emptively isolated admissions to "high-risk" specialties; 7 (5%) used PCR routinely. Mean time to MRSA positive result: 2.87 days (±1.33); 37% (219/596) newly identified MRSA patients discharged before result available; 55% remainder (205/376) isolated post-result. In an average trust, CLAS would reduce screening by 50%, identifying 81% of all MRSA. "High risk" specialty screening would reduce screening by 89%, identifying 9% of MRSA. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of universal screening was poor. Admission prevalence (new cases) was low. CLAS reduced screening effort for minor decreases in identification, but implementation may prove difficult. Cost effectiveness of this and other policies, awaits evaluation by transmission dynamic economic modelling, using data from this audit. Until then trusts should seek to improve implementation of current policy and use of isolation facilities.