Lapointe-Shaw Lauren, Mamdani Muhammad, Luo Jin, Austin Peter C, Ivers Noah M, Redelmeier Donald A, Bell Chaim M
Department of Medicine (Lapointe-Shaw, Mamdani, Redelmeier, Bell), University of Toronto; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Mamdani), St. Michael's Hospital; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Mamdani, Luo, Austin, Ivers, Redelmeier, Bell); Department of Family and Community Medicine (Ivers), University of Toronto; Sinai Health System (Bell); Women's College Hospital (Ivers), Toronto, Ont.
CMAJ. 2017 Oct 2;189(39):E1224-E1229. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.170092.
Timely follow-up after hospital discharge may decrease readmission to hospital. Financial incentives to improve follow-up have been introduced in the United States and Canada, but it is unknown whether they are effective. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of an incentive program on timely physician follow-up after hospital discharge.
We conducted an interventional time series analysis of all medical and surgical patients who were discharged home from hospital between Apr. 1, 2002, and Jan. 30, 2015, in Ontario, Canada. The intervention was a supplemental billing code for physician follow-up within 14 days of discharge from hospital, introduced in 2006. The primary outcome was an outpatient visit within 14 days of discharge. Secondary outcomes were 7-day follow-up and a composite of emergency department visits, nonelective hospital readmission and death within 14 days.
We included 8 008 934 patient discharge records. The incentive code was claimed in 31% of eligible visits by 51% of eligible physicians, and cost $17.5 million over the study period. There was no change in the average monthly rate of outcomes in the year before the incentive was introduced compared with the year following introduction: 14-day follow-up (66.5% v. 67.0%, overall = 0.5), 7-day follow-up (44.9% v. 44.9%, overall = 0.5) and composite outcome (16.7% v. 16.9%, overall = 0.2).
Despite uptake by physicians, a financial incentive did not alter follow-up after hospital discharge. This lack of effect may be explained by features of the incentive or by extra-physician barriers to follow-up. These barriers should be considered by policymakers before introducing similar initiatives.
出院后及时随访可能会降低再次入院率。美国和加拿大已引入经济激励措施以改善随访情况,但这些措施是否有效尚不清楚。我们的目的是评估一项激励计划对出院后医生及时随访的影响。
我们对2002年4月1日至2015年1月30日期间在加拿大安大略省出院回家的所有内科和外科患者进行了一项干预性时间序列分析。干预措施是2006年引入的一项针对出院后14天内医生随访的补充计费代码。主要结局是出院后14天内的门诊就诊。次要结局是7天随访以及14天内急诊就诊、非选择性再次入院和死亡的综合情况。
我们纳入了8008934份患者出院记录。在符合条件的就诊中,51%的符合条件的医生申报了激励代码,在研究期间花费了1750万美元。引入激励措施前一年与引入后一年的平均每月结局发生率没有变化:14天随访(66.5%对67.0%,总体差异 = 0.5)、7天随访(44.9%对44.9%,总体差异 = 0.5)和综合结局(16.7%对16.9%,总体差异 = 0.2)。
尽管医生采用了该措施,但经济激励并未改变出院后的随访情况。这种缺乏效果的情况可能是由激励措施的特点或医生之外的随访障碍所解释。政策制定者在推出类似举措之前应考虑这些障碍。