Division of Health Services Research, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Goethe University, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany.
Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum München-German Research Center for Environmental Health (GmbH), Ingolstädter Landstr. 1, 85764, Neuherberg, Germany.
Int J Health Geogr. 2020 Jul 27;19(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s12942-020-00223-3.
The adequate allocation of inpatient care resources requires assumptions about the need for health care and how this need will be met. However, in current practice, these assumptions are often based on outdated methods (e.g. Hill-Burton Formula). This study evaluated floating catchment area (FCA) methods, which have been applied as measures of spatial accessibility, focusing on their ability to predict the need for health care in the inpatient sector in Germany.
We tested three FCA methods (enhanced (E2SFCA), modified (M2SFCA) and integrated (iFCA)) for their accuracy in predicting hospital visits regarding six medical diagnoses (atrial flutter/fibrillation, heart failure, femoral fracture, gonarthrosis, stroke, and epilepsy) on national level in Germany. We further used the closest provider approach for benchmark purposes. The predicted visits were compared with the actual visits for all six diagnoses using a correlation analysis and a maximum error from the actual visits of ± 5%, ± 10% and ± 15%.
The analysis of 229 million distances between hospitals and population locations revealed a high and significant correlation of predicted with actual visits for all three FCA methods across all six diagnoses up to ρ = 0.79 (p < 0.001). Overall, all FCA methods showed a substantially higher correlation with actual hospital visits compared to the closest provider approach (up to ρ = 0.51; p < 0.001). Allowing a 5% error of the absolute values, the analysis revealed up to 13.4% correctly predicted hospital visits using the FCA methods (15% error: up to 32.5% correctly predicted hospital). Finally, the potential of the FCA methods could be revealed by using the actual hospital visits as the measure of hospital attractiveness, which returned very strong correlations with the actual hospital visits up to ρ = 0.99 (p < 0.001).
We were able to demonstrate the impact of FCA measures regarding the prediction of hospital visits in non-emergency settings, and their superiority over commonly used methods (i.e. closest provider). However, hospital beds were inadequate as the measure of hospital attractiveness resulting in low accuracy of predicted hospital visits. More reliable measures must be integrated within the proposed methods. Still, this study strengthens the possibilities of FCA methods in health care planning beyond their original application in measuring spatial accessibility.
为了合理分配住院医疗资源,需要对医疗需求以及满足这些需求的方式进行假设。 然而,在当前的实践中,这些假设通常基于过时的方法(例如希尔-伯顿公式)。 本研究评估了浮动收容区(FCA)方法,该方法已被用作空间可达性的度量标准,重点关注其在预测德国住院部门医疗需求方面的能力。
我们测试了三种 FCA 方法(增强型(E2SFCA)、改良型(M2SFCA)和综合型(iFCA))在德国全国范围内针对六种医疗诊断(心房颤动/纤颤、心力衰竭、股骨骨折、膝关节炎、中风和癫痫)的准确性,这些方法用于预测医院就诊情况。 我们进一步使用最近的服务提供者方法作为基准。 使用相关性分析和实际就诊的最大误差(±5%、±10%和±15%),将预测就诊次数与所有六种诊断的实际就诊次数进行比较。
对医院和人口位置之间的 2.29 亿个距离的分析表明,在所有六种诊断中,所有三种 FCA 方法的预测就诊次数与实际就诊次数之间均存在高度显著的相关性,达到 ρ=0.79(p<0.001)。 总体而言,与最近的服务提供者方法相比,所有 FCA 方法与实际就诊次数的相关性更高(最高可达 ρ=0.51;p<0.001)。 在允许绝对值存在 5%的误差的情况下,FCA 方法可以正确预测高达 13.4%的就诊次数(10%的误差:正确预测的就诊次数高达 32.5%)。 最后,通过将实际就诊次数用作医院吸引力的衡量标准,揭示了 FCA 方法的潜力,结果与实际就诊次数之间的相关性非常强,达到 ρ=0.99(p<0.001)。
我们能够证明 FCA 方法在预测非紧急情况下的就诊次数方面的作用,以及它们相对于常用方法(即最近的服务提供者)的优势。 然而,由于医院床位是作为医院吸引力的衡量标准,导致预测就诊次数的准确性较低,因此必须整合更可靠的衡量标准。 尽管如此,本研究仍加强了 FCA 方法在医疗保健规划中的可能性,超出了其在测量空间可达性方面的最初应用。