Hospital response to Activity-Based Funding and price incentives: Evidence from Ireland.

Activity-Based Funding (ABF) is a funding policy incentivising hospitals to deliver more efficient care. ABF can be complemented by additional price incentives to further drive hospital efficiency. In 2016, ABF was introduced for public patients admitted to Irish public hospitals. Additionally, a price incentive to perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy as day-case surgery was introduced in 2018. Private patient activity in public hospitals was subject to neither ABF nor price incentive. Using national Hospital In-Patient-Enquiry activity data 2013-2019, we evaluated the impact of ABF and the price incentive for laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery in Ireland. We exploit variation in hospital payment for public and private patients treated in public acute Irish hospitals and employ a Propensity Score Matching Difference-in-Differences approach. We estimate the funding change impacts across outcomes measuring the proportion of day-case admissions and length of stay. We found no significant impact for either outcomes linked to ABF introduction. Similarly, no impacts linked to the price incentive were observed. It appears providers of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Irish public hospitals did not react to the new funding mechanisms. The implementation of the funding policies did not improve hospital efficiency. Further strengthening of these new funding mechanisms are required to deliver more efficient care.

A comparison of four quasi-experimental methods: an analysis of the introduction of activity-based funding in Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Health services research often relies on quasi-experimental study designs in the estimation of treatment effects of a policy change or an intervention. The aim of this study is to compare some of the commonly used non-experimental methods in estimating intervention effects, and to highlight their relative strengths and weaknesses. We estimate the effects of Activity-Based Funding, a hospital financing reform of Irish public hospitals, introduced in 2016. METHODS: We estimate and compare four analytical methods: Interrupted time series analysis, Difference-in-Differences, Propensity Score Matching Difference-in-Differences and the Synthetic Control method. Specifically, we focus on the comparison between the control-treatment methods and the non-control-treatment approach, interrupted time series analysis. Our empirical example evaluated the length of stay impact post hip replacement surgery, following the introduction of Activity-Based Funding in Ireland. We also contribute to the very limited research reporting the impacts of Activity-Based-Funding within the Irish context. RESULTS: Interrupted time-series analysis produced statistically significant results different in interpretation, while the Difference-in-Differences, Propensity Score Matching Difference-in-Differences and Synthetic Control methods incorporating control groups, suggested no statistically significant intervention effect, on patient length of stay. CONCLUSION: Our analysis confirms that different analytical methods for estimating intervention effects provide different assessments of the intervention effects. It is crucial that researchers employ appropriate designs which incorporate a counterfactual framework. Such methods tend to be more robust and provide a stronger basis for evidence-based policy-making.

Impact of COVID-19 on hip fracture care in Ireland: findings from the Irish Hip Fracture Database.

PURPOSE: To describe the impact of COVID-19 on hip fracture care during the first 6 months of the pandemic. METHODS: A secondary analysis of 4385 cases in the Irish Hip Fracture Database from 1st June 2019 to 31st August 2020 was conducted. RESULTS: Hip fracture admissions decreased by 15% during the study period (p < 0.001). Patient characteristics were largely unchanged as the majority of cases occurred in females over 80 years admitted from home. Adherence to many of the Irish Hip Fracture Standards (IHFS) changed following the COVID-19 pandemic. There was an increase in patients admitted to an orthopaedic ward from Emergency Department (ED) within 4 h from 27 to 36% (p < 0.001). However, the proportion of patients reviewed by a geriatrician reduced from 85% pre-COVID to 80% (p < 0.001). Fewer patients received a bone health assessment [90% from 95% (p < 0.001)] and specialist falls assessment [(82% from 88% (p < 0.001)]. No change was seen in time to surgery or incidence of pressure injuries. There was a significant decrease in length of stay from 18 to 14 days (p < 0.001). There was an increase in patients discharged home during the COVID-19 period and a decrease in patients discharged to rehabilitation, convalescence or nursing home care. There was no statistically significant change in mortality. CONCLUSION: Healthcare services were widely restructured during the pandemic, which had implications for hip fracture patients. There was a notable change in compliance with the IHFS. Multidisciplinary teams involved in hip fracture care should be preserved throughout any subsequent waves of the pandemic.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on provision and outcomes of emergency abdominal surgery in Irish public hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic caused severe disruption to scheduled surgery in Ireland but its impact on emergency abdominal surgery (EAS) is unknown. AIMS: The primary objective was to identify changes in volume, length of stay (LOS), and survival outcomes following EAS during the pandemic. A secondary objective was to evaluate differences in EAS patient flow including admission source, ITU utilisation, discharge destination, and readmission rates. METHODS: Using a national administrative dataset, demographic, comorbidity, and patient flow data on 5611 patients admitted for EAS between 2018 and 2020 were extracted. Pre-pandemic and pandemic timeframes were compared using graphic and regression analyses, and bivariate logistic regression, adjusting for demographics and case-mix. RESULTS: There was a 19.9% decrease in EAS during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic with no difference in comorbidity, nor in the commonest procedures. Most patients (92.4%) were admitted from home. In-hospital post-operative mortality was unchanged (7.6%). Patients over 80 comprised 16.3% of EAS pre-COVID, but 17.9% during COVID. Average total LOS reduced significantly by 4.9 days and 3.5 days during COVID-19 waves 1 (29 Feb 2020-30 June 2020) and 2 (1 July 2020-30 Nov 2020), respectively. During wave 1, pre-operative LOS reduced (1 day) and ICU LOS was significantly shorter (0.8 days), but similar change was not observed during wave 2. CONCLUSIONS: Significant improvements in patient flow following admission for EAS during the pandemic were observed. These changes were not associated with greater mortality nor increased readmission rates and offer important insights into optimal delivery of EAS services.

Volume and in-hospital mortality after emergency abdominal surgery: a national population-based study.

​OBJECTIVES: Emergency abdominal surgery (EAS) refers to high-risk intra-abdominal surgical procedures undertaken for acute gastrointestinal pathology. The relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and mortality of patients undergoing EAS is poorly understood. This study examined this relationship at the national level. ​DESIGN: This is a national population-based study using a full administrative inpatient dataset (National Quality Assurance Improvement System) from publicly funded hospitals in Ireland. ​SETTING: 24 public hospitals providing EAS services. ​PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Patients undergoing EAS as identified by primary procedure codes during the period 2014-2018. ​MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was adjusted in-hospital mortality following EAS in publicly funded Irish hospitals. Mortality rates were adjusted for sex, age, admission source, Charlson Comorbidity Index, procedure complexity, organ system and primary diagnosis. Differences in overall, 7-day and 30-day in-hospital mortality for hospitals with low (<250), medium (250-449) and high (450+) volume and surgical teams with low (<30), medium (30-59) and high (60+) volume during the study period were also estimated. ​RESULTS: The study included 10 344 EAS episodes. 798 in-hospital deaths occurred, giving an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 77 per 1000 episodes. There was no statistically significant difference in adjusted mortality rate between low and high volume hospitals. Low volume surgical teams had a higher adjusted mortality rate (85.4 deaths/1000 episodes) compared with high volume teams (54.7 deaths/1000 episodes), a difference that persisted among low volume surgeons practising in high volume hospitals. ​CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing EAS managed by high volume surgeons have better survival outcomes. These findings contribute to the ongoing discussion regarding configuration of emergency surgery services and emphasise the need for effective clinical governance regarding observed variation in outcomes within and between institutions.

The contribution of endoscopy quality measures to the development of interval colorectal cancers in the screening population: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Colon cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related death and an important cause of morbidity. The natural history of carcinogenesis, via the adenoma-carcinoma sequence, permits screening, which reduces the relative risk of mortality by up to 16%. The efficacy of a screening programme is limited by the growth of interval colorectal cancers between screening examinations. Quantifying the rate of interval cancers and delineating contributing endoscopic factors are crucial to maximise the benefit of a screening program. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA principles. Electronic databases were interrogated with a considered search strategy, and reference lists of retrieved papers were surveyed. For inclusion, studies included the rate of interval cancer (stated or calculated) and reported at least one of a predefined list of endoscopy characteristics. The primary outcome was to establish the rate of interval cancers. The secondary outcome was to determine the association between endoscopy quality measures and interval cancers. RESULTS: The search yielded 2067 papers. Seventy-six full text papers were reviewed. Fifteen papers met the inclusion criteria. In total, there were 117,793 colon cancers, 7281 of which were interval lesions, giving an overall rate of 6.2%. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) of the endoscopist performing the index operation was the most consistent endoscopy factor associated with development of interval cancers. The impact of setting, volume and bowel preparation varied between papers. CONCLUSION: Interval cancers reduce the efficacy of colorectal screening programmes. Ensuring the quality of the endoscopy process, specifically by increasing the ADR of practitioners, is crucial to the reduction of the rate of interval cancers.