The Nuffield Trust, London W1G 7LP, UK.
BMJ. 2013 Aug 6;347:f4585. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f4585.
To test the effect of a telephone health coaching service (Birmingham OwnHealth) on hospital use and associated costs.
Analysis of person level administrative data. Difference-in-difference analysis was done relative to matched controls.
Community based intervention operating in a large English city with industry.
2698 patients recruited from local general practices before 2009 with heart failure, coronary heart disease, diabetes, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and a history of inpatient or outpatient hospital use. These individuals were matched on a 1:1 basis to control patients from similar areas of England with respect to demographics, diagnoses of health conditions, previous hospital use, and a predictive risk score.
Telephone health coaching involved a personalised care plan and a series of outbound calls usually scheduled monthly. Median length of time enrolled on the service was 25.5 months. Control participants received usual healthcare in their areas, which did not include telephone health coaching.
Number of emergency hospital admissions per head over 12 months after enrolment. Secondary metrics calculated over 12 months were: hospital bed days, elective hospital admissions, outpatient attendances, and secondary care costs.
In relation to diagnoses of health conditions and other baseline variables, matched controls and intervention patients were similar before the date of enrolment. After this point, emergency admissions increased more quickly among intervention participants than matched controls (difference 0.05 admissions per head, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.09, P=0.046). Outpatient attendances also increased more quickly in the intervention group (difference 0.37 attendances per head, 0.16 to 0.58, P<0.001), as did secondary care costs (difference £175 per head, £22 to £328, P=0.025). Checks showed that we were unlikely to have missed reductions in emergency admissions because of unobserved differences between intervention and matched control groups.
The Birmingham OwnHealth telephone health coaching intervention did not lead to the expected reductions in hospital admissions or secondary care costs over 12 months, and could have led to increases.
检验电话健康辅导服务(伯明翰健康自主)对住院使用和相关费用的影响。
基于个人层面的行政数据进行分析。采用差分分析方法,对匹配的对照组进行相对比较。
在一个拥有工业的大型英国城市,以社区为基础的干预措施。
2009 年之前从当地全科医生处招募的心力衰竭、冠心病、糖尿病或慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者,以及有住院或门诊住院使用史的患者。这些个体与英格兰类似地区的对照组患者按照人口统计学、健康状况诊断、以往住院使用情况和预测风险评分进行一对一匹配。
电话健康辅导包括个性化护理计划和一系列通常每月安排的外呼。参与服务的中位数时间为 25.5 个月。对照组患者在其所在地区接受常规医疗保健,其中不包括电话健康辅导。
注册后 12 个月内每人的急诊住院次数。12 个月内计算的次要指标包括:住院天数、择期住院、门诊就诊和二级护理费用。
与健康状况诊断和其他基线变量相关,匹配的对照组和干预组患者在注册日期之前相似。在此之后,干预组患者的急诊入院人数增加速度快于对照组(差异为 0.05 人/次,95%置信区间为 0.00 至 0.09,P=0.046)。干预组的门诊就诊人数也增加得更快(差异为 0.37 人/次,0.16 至 0.58,P<0.001),二级护理费用也增加得更多(差异为 175 英镑/人,22 至 328 英镑,P=0.025)。检查表明,我们不太可能因为干预组和对照组之间未观察到的差异而错过急诊入院人数的减少。
伯明翰健康自主电话健康辅导干预措施在 12 个月内并没有导致预期的住院人数或二级护理费用减少,反而可能导致增加。