Costs of complications after colorectal cancer surgery in the Netherlands: Building the business case for hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers worldwide are struggling with rising costs while hospitals budgets are under stress. Colorectal cancer surgery is commonly performed, however it is associated with a disproportionate share of adverse events in general surgery. Since adverse events are associated with extra hospital costs it seems important to explicitly discuss the costs of complications and the risk factors for high-costs after colorectal surgery. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of clinical and financial outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery in 29 Dutch hospitals (6768 patients). Detailed clinical data was derived from the 2011-2012 population-based Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit database. Costs were measured uniform in all participating hospitals and based on Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing. FINDINGS: Of total hospital costs in this study, 31% was spent on complications and the top 5% most expensive patients were accountable for 23% of hospitals budgets. Minor and severe complications were respectively associated with a 26% and 196% increase in costs as compared to patients without complications. Independent from other risk factors, ASA IV, double tumor, ASA III, short course preoperative radiotherapy and TNM-4 stadium disease were the top-5 attributors to high costs. CONCLUSIONS: This article shows that complications after colorectal cancer surgery are associated with a substantial increase in costs. Although not all surgical complications can be prevented, reducing complications will result in considerable cost savings. By providing a business case we show that investments made to develop targeted quality improvement programs will pay off eventually. Results based on this study should encourage healthcare providers to endorse quality improvement efforts.

Comparison of different strategies of referral to a fall clinic: how to achieve an optimal casemix?

UNLABELLED: OBJECTIVE To study the potential differences in patient characteristics between two referral methods to a fall clinic, specifically: case-finding of patients admitted to an emergency department because of a fall, compared to direct referral to the fall clinic via the general practitioner. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Fall clinics in two university teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred community-dwelling older people aged 65 years or over currently attending the fall clinics in Nijmegen (Group 1, n=154) and in Amsterdam (Group 2, n=146). MEASUREMENTS: Patients were referred by a general practitioner (Group 1) or were selected using the Carefall Triage Instrument (CTI) after visiting the emergency department (Group 2). In all patients, modifiable risk factors for recurrent falls were assessed. RESULTS: Group 1 had less modifiable risk factors for falling (a mean of 4 (SD 1.6) vs. a mean of 5 (SD 1.5) in Group 2, p < 0.001). Compared to Group 2, Group 1 had more prevalent " recurrent falling (≥ 2 falls)" (p=0.001) and "assisted living in homes for the aged" (p=0.037). "Fear of falling", "mobility and balance problems", "home hazards" and "osteoporosis" were significantly less prevalent in Group 1. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that patients referred to a multidisciplinary fall prevention clinic by their general practitioner have a different risk profile than those selected by case finding using the CTI. These differences have consequences for the reach of secondary care for fall-preventive interventions and will probably influence the effectiveness and efficiency of a fall prevention program.