Palmer Karen S, Agoritsas Thomas, Martin Danielle, Scott Taryn, Mulla Sohail M, Miller Ashley P, Agarwal Arnav, Bresnahan Andrew, Hazzan Afeez Abiola, Jeffery Rebecca A, Merglen Arnaud, Negm Ahmed, Siemieniuk Reed A, Bhatnagar Neera, Dhalla Irfan A, Lavis John N, You John J, Duckett Stephen J, Guyatt Gordon H
Faculty of Health Sciences and Faculty of Science Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Divisions of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospitals of Geneva and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 27;9(10):e109975. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109975. eCollection 2014.
Activity-based funding (ABF) of hospitals is a policy intervention intended to re-shape incentives across health systems through the use of diagnosis-related groups. Many countries are adopting or actively promoting ABF. We assessed the effect of ABF on key measures potentially affecting patients and health care systems: mortality (acute and post-acute care); readmission rates; discharge rate to post-acute care following hospitalization; severity of illness; volume of care.
We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of the worldwide evidence produced since 1980. We included all studies reporting original quantitative data comparing the impact of ABF versus alternative funding systems in acute care settings, regardless of language. We searched 9 electronic databases (OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Health Technology Assessment, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Business Source), hand-searched reference lists, and consulted with experts. Paired reviewers independently screened for eligibility, abstracted data, and assessed study credibility according to a pre-defined scoring system, resolving conflicts by discussion or adjudication.
Of 16,565 unique citations, 50 US studies and 15 studies from 9 other countries proved eligible (i.e. Australia, Austria, England, Germany, Israel, Italy, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland). We found consistent and robust differences between ABF and no-ABF in discharge to post-acute care, showing a 24% increase with ABF (pooled relative risk = 1.24, 95% CI 1.18-1.31). Results also suggested a possible increase in readmission with ABF, and an apparent increase in severity of illness, perhaps reflecting differences in diagnostic coding. Although we found no consistent, systematic differences in mortality rates and volume of care, results varied widely across studies, some suggesting appreciable benefits from ABF, and others suggesting deleterious consequences.
Transitioning to ABF is associated with important policy- and clinically-relevant changes. Evidence suggests substantial increases in admissions to post-acute care following hospitalization, with implications for system capacity and equitable access to care. High variability in results of other outcomes leaves the impact in particular settings uncertain, and may not allow a jurisdiction to predict if ABF would be harmless. Decision-makers considering ABF should plan for likely increases in post-acute care admissions, and be aware of the large uncertainty around impacts on other critical outcomes.
基于活动的医院资金分配(ABF)是一项政策干预措施,旨在通过使用诊断相关分组来重塑整个卫生系统的激励机制。许多国家正在采用或积极推广ABF。我们评估了ABF对可能影响患者和卫生保健系统的关键指标的影响:死亡率(急性和急性后护理);再入院率;住院后转入急性后护理的出院率;疾病严重程度;护理量。
我们对1980年以来全球范围内产生的证据进行了系统评价和荟萃分析。我们纳入了所有报告原始定量数据的研究,这些研究比较了ABF与其他资金分配系统在急性护理环境中的影响,无论语言如何。我们检索了9个电子数据库(OVID MEDLINE、EMBASE、OVID Healthstar、CINAHL、Cochrane CENTRAL、卫生技术评估、英国国家卫生服务系统经济评价数据库、Cochrane系统评价数据库和商业资源),手工检索参考文献列表,并咨询了专家。由两名评审员独立筛选研究的合格性,提取数据,并根据预先定义的评分系统评估研究的可信度,通过讨论或裁决解决分歧。
在16565条独特的引文中,50项美国研究和来自其他9个国家(即澳大利亚、奥地利、英格兰、德国、以色列、意大利、苏格兰、瑞典、瑞士)的15项研究被证明符合要求。我们发现ABF组和非ABF组在转入急性后护理方面存在一致且显著的差异,ABF组的转入率增加了24%(合并相对风险=1.24,95%可信区间1.18-1.31)。结果还表明,ABF可能会增加再入院率,且疾病严重程度明显增加,这可能反映了诊断编码的差异。尽管我们发现死亡率和护理量没有一致的、系统性的差异,但不同研究的结果差异很大,一些研究表明ABF有明显益处,而另一些研究则表明有有害后果。
向ABF的转变与重要的政策和临床相关变化有关。有证据表明,住院后转入急性后护理的人数大幅增加,这对系统能力和公平获得护理有影响。其他结果的高度变异性使得在特定环境中的影响不确定,一个司法管辖区可能无法预测ABF是否无害。考虑采用ABF的决策者应规划急性后护理入院人数可能的增加,并意识到对其他关键结果影响的巨大不确定性。