RESUMEN
Research into the quality of cancer screening programs often lacks the perspective of clinicians, missing insights into the performance of individual hospitals. This retrospective cohort study aimed to identify guideline deviation (specifically, overtreatment and undertreatment) related to the cervical cancer screening program in Dutch hospitals by deterministically linking nationwide insurance data with pathology data for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). We then constructed quality indicators using the Dutch CIN guideline and National Health Care Institute recommendations to assess compliance with CIN management, treatment outcomes, and follow-up, using an empirical Bayes shrinkage model to correct for case-mix variation and hospitals with few observations. Data were linked for 115,899 of 125,751 (92%) eligible women. Overtreatment was observed in the see-and-treat approach (immediate treatment) for women with low-grade referral cytology (4%; hospital range, 0%-25%), CIN ≤ 1 treatment specimens (26%; hospital range, 10%-55%), and follow-up cervix cytology ≥2 months before the guideline recommendation after treatment for CIN 2 (2%; hospital range, 0%-9%) or CIN 3 (5%; hospital range, 0%-19%). By contrast, undertreatment was observed for treatment within 3 months after a CIN 3 biopsy result (90%; hospital range 59%-100%) and follow-up ≥2 months beyond the guideline recommendation after treatments for CIN 2 (21%, hospital range 7%-48%) and CIN 3 (20%, hospital range 7%-90%). In conclusion, we found evidence of CIN overtreatment and undertreatment in all measured domains at the hospital level. Guideline adherence could be improved by implementing the developed indicators in an audit and feedback instrument for use by healthcare professionals in routine practice.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: One of the most significant challenges of implementing a multi-provider bundled payment contract is to determine an appropriate, casemix-adjusted total bundle price. The most frequently used approach is to leverage historic care utilization based on claims data. However, those claims data may not accurately reflect appropriate care (e.g. due to supplier induced demand and moral hazard effects). This study aims to examine variation in claims-based costs of post-discharge primary care physical therapy (PT) utilization after total knee and hip arthroplasties (TKA/THA) for osteoarthritis patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used multilevel linear regression analyses to predict the factors that explain the variation in the utilization of post-discharge PT after TKA or THA for osteoarthritis patients, based on the historic (2015-2018) claims data of a large Dutch health insurer. The factors were structured as predisposing, enabling or need factors according to the behavioral model of Andersen. RESULTS: The 15,309 TKA and 14,325 THA patients included in this study received an average of 20.7 (SD 11.3) and 16.7 (SD 10.1) post-discharge PT sessions, respectively. Results showed that the enabling factor 'presence of supplementary insurance' was the strongest predictor for post-discharge PT utilization in both groups (TKA: ß = 7.46, SE = 0.498, p-value< 0.001; THA: ß = 5.72, SE = 0.515, p-value< 0.001). There were also some statistically significant predisposing and need factors, but their effects were smaller. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that if enabling factors (such as supplementary insurance coverage or co-payments) are not taken into account in risk-adjustment of the bundle price, they may cause historic claims-based pricing methods to over- or underestimate appropriate post-discharge primary care PT use, which would result in a bundle price that is either too high or too low. Not adjusting bundle prices for all relevant casemix factors is a risk because it can hamper the successful implementation of bundled payment contracts and the desired changes in care delivery it aims to support.