Broekman Sjoerd, Van Gils-Van Rooij Elisabeth, Meijboom Berthold, De Bakker Dingenus, Yzermans Christoffel
Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, The Netherlands.
Tilburg University Tranzo Scientific Centre for Care and Welfare, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
J Prim Health Care. 2017 Sep;9(3):212-219. doi: 10.1071/HC17015.
INTRODUCTION In the Netherlands, general practitioners (GPs) and emergency departments (EDs) collaborate increasingly in urgent care collaborations (UCCs) in which the two services share one combined entrance and joint triage. AIM The objective of this study is to determine if UCCs are cost-effective compared to the usual care setting where out-of-hours GP services and EDs work separately. METHODS This observational study compared UCCs with the usual care setting on costs by performing linear regression analyses. These costs were also combined with two performance indicators: level of patient satisfaction and the length of stay. A non-parametric bootstrap (resampling) method was performed in order to analyze the cost-effect pairs. RESULTS During the study period, 122,061 patients visited EDs and the out-of-hours GP services. Total mean costs per episode were substantially higher in UCCs: ?480 versus ?392 respectively. In this study, two factors that contributed to higher costs in UCCs compared to usual care were identified. First, there was a higher proportion of GP consultations instead of cheaper medical advice for self-care in UCCs. Second, in UCCs there were more often double costs per episode, as more patients were referred to an ED after triage or consulting GP services. The cost-effectiveness analyses show that UCCs were not dominant on cost-effectiveness compared to the usual care setting. DISCUSSION A substitution of, often self-referring, patients from EDs to GP services does not result in lower costs to society, a shorter length of stay or a higher level of patient satisfaction.
引言 在荷兰,全科医生(GPs)和急诊科(EDs)在紧急护理协作(UCCs)中的合作日益增加,在这种协作中,这两种服务共享一个联合入口和联合分诊。目的 本研究的目的是确定与非工作时间全科医生服务和急诊科单独工作的常规护理环境相比,紧急护理协作是否具有成本效益。方法 这项观察性研究通过进行线性回归分析,比较了紧急护理协作与常规护理环境的成本。这些成本还与两个绩效指标相结合:患者满意度水平和住院时间。为了分析成本效益对,采用了非参数自助法(重采样)。结果 在研究期间,有122,061名患者就诊于急诊科和非工作时间的全科医生服务。每次就诊的总平均成本在紧急护理协作中显著更高:分别为480欧元和392欧元。在本研究中,确定了与常规护理相比,紧急护理协作成本更高的两个因素。首先,在紧急护理协作中,全科医生咨询的比例更高,而不是更便宜的自我护理医疗建议。其次,在紧急护理协作中,每次就诊的双重成本更常见,因为更多患者在分诊或咨询全科医生服务后被转诊至急诊科。成本效益分析表明,与常规护理环境相比,紧急护理协作在成本效益方面并不占优势。讨论 将通常自行就诊的患者从急诊科转移到全科医生服务,并不能降低社会成本、缩短住院时间或提高患者满意度水平。