Watkins Johnathan, Wulaningsih Wahyu, Da Zhou Charlie, Marshall Dominic C, Sylianteng Guia D C, Dela Rosa Phyllis G, Miguel Viveka A, Raine Rosalind, King Lawrence P, Maruthappu Mahiben
Institute for Mathematical and Molecular Biomedicine, King's College London, London, UK.
PILAR Research and Education, Cambridge, UK.
BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 15;7(11):e017722. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017722.
Since 2010, England has experienced relative constraints in public expenditure on healthcare (PEH) and social care (PES). We sought to determine whether these constraints have affected mortality rates.
We collected data on health and social care resources and finances for England from 2001 to 2014. Time trend analyses were conducted to compare the actual mortality rates in 2011-2014 with the counterfactual rates expected based on trends before spending constraints. Fixed-effects regression analyses were conducted using annual data on PES and PEH with mortality as the outcome, with further adjustments for macroeconomic factors and resources. Analyses were stratified by age group, place of death and lower-tier local authority (n=325). Mortality rates to 2020 were projected based on recent trends.
Spending constraints between 2010 and 2014 were associated with an estimated 45 368 (95% CI 34 530 to 56 206) higher than expected number of deaths compared with pre-2010 trends. Deaths in those aged ≥60 and in care homes accounted for the majority. PES was more strongly linked with care home and home mortality than PEH, with each £10 per capita decline in real PES associated with an increase of 5.10 (3.65-6.54) (p<0.001) care home deaths per 100 000. These associations persisted in lag analyses and after adjustment for macroeconomic factors. Furthermore, we found that changes in real PES per capita may be linked to mortality mostly via changes in nurse numbers. Projections to 2020 based on 2009-2014 trend was cumulatively linked to an estimated 152 141 (95% CI 134 597 and 169 685) additional deaths.
Spending constraints, especially PES, are associated with a substantial mortality gap. We suggest that spending should be targeted on improving care delivered in care homes and at home; and maintaining or increasing nurse numbers.
自2010年以来,英国在医疗保健公共支出(PEH)和社会护理支出(PES)方面受到了相对限制。我们试图确定这些限制是否影响了死亡率。
我们收集了2001年至2014年英格兰卫生和社会护理资源及财务数据。进行时间趋势分析,以比较2011 - 2014年的实际死亡率与基于支出限制前趋势预期的反事实死亡率。使用以死亡率为结果的PES和PEH年度数据进行固定效应回归分析,并对宏观经济因素和资源进行进一步调整。分析按年龄组、死亡地点和下级地方当局(n = 325)分层。根据近期趋势预测了到2020年的死亡率。
与2010年之前的趋势相比,2010年至2014年的支出限制与估计比预期多45368例(95%可信区间34530至56206)死亡相关。60岁及以上人群和养老院中的死亡占多数。与PEH相比,PES与养老院和家庭死亡率的联系更为紧密,实际人均PES每减少10英镑,每10万人中养老院死亡人数增加5.10(3.65 - 6.54)(p < 0.001)。这些关联在滞后分析和调整宏观经济因素后仍然存在。此外,我们发现人均实际PES的变化可能主要通过护士人数的变化与死亡率相关。基于2009 - 2014年趋势对2020年的预测累计与估计多152141例(95%可信区间134597至169685)死亡相关。
支出限制,尤其是PES,与显著的死亡率差距相关。我们建议支出应针对性地用于改善养老院和家庭提供的护理;并维持或增加护士人数。