Hafdi M, Richard E, van Gool S E, Moll van Charante E P, van Gool W A
Amsterdam UMC, locatie AMC, afd. Neurologie, Amsterdam.
Contact: M. Hafdi (
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2021 Feb 25;165:D5315.
To determine variation in diagnostic strategies for diagnosing dementia between Dutch hospitals.
Descriptive, retrospective research based on claim data of Dutch health insurers.
Information on the use of diagnostic ancillary services carried out from 2015 to 2018 was collected via national-level insurance claims for patients who received a (new) diagnose-coding for dementia in 2018. Hospitals were included in the analysis if they diagnosed >50 patients with dementia. We distinguished academic medical centres (AMC), non-academic training hospitals (TH) and general hospitals (GH).
In 2018, 20.073 new cases of dementia were diagnosed in 71 hospitals. The percentages of patients undergoing MRI/CT-imaging ranged from 37 to 99% (median 76.7%), neuropsychological-assessment from 0-89% (median 31.8%), cerebrospinal fluid examination from 0-14% (median 2.4%), PET/SPECT-imaging from 0-16% (median 6.2%) and electroencephalography from 1-20% (median 5.8%). Practice variation was comparable in AMCs, THs and GHs and was evidently skewed for PET/SPECT-imaging, electroencephalography and cerebrospinal fluid examination. There were no distinct differences according to case-mix characteristics or hospital volume. The percentage of patients subjected to ancillary diagnostic investigations decreased sharply with increasing age.
In the Netherlands, diagnostic ancillary methods used vary widely between hospitals both in frequency and modality. This variation may be driven by limited evidence of diagnostic accuracy and added value of different diagnostic tests, variations in doctor and patient preferences and differences in available diagnostic techniques per hospital. Further exploration of this heterogeneity may help to identify a strategy that combines the most benefit with the least burden.
确定荷兰各医院在痴呆症诊断策略上的差异。
基于荷兰健康保险公司理赔数据的描述性回顾性研究。
通过对2018年被诊断为(新的)痴呆症编码的患者的国家级保险理赔数据,收集2015年至2018年期间使用诊断辅助服务的信息。若医院诊断出超过50例痴呆症患者,则纳入分析。我们区分了学术医疗中心(AMC)、非学术培训医院(TH)和综合医院(GH)。
2018年,71家医院诊断出20073例新发痴呆症病例。接受MRI/CT成像的患者百分比在37%至99%之间(中位数为76.7%),接受神经心理评估的患者百分比在0%至89%之间(中位数为31.8%),接受脑脊液检查的患者百分比在0%至14%之间(中位数为2.4%),接受PET/SPECT成像的患者百分比在0%至16%之间(中位数为6.2%),接受脑电图检查的患者百分比在1%至20%之间(中位数为5.8%)。AMC、TH和GH的实践差异相当,且PET/SPECT成像、脑电图检查和脑脊液检查明显存在偏差。根据病例组合特征或医院规模没有明显差异。随着年龄增长,接受辅助诊断检查的患者百分比急剧下降。
在荷兰,各医院使用的诊断辅助方法在频率和方式上差异很大。这种差异可能是由于不同诊断测试的诊断准确性和附加值的证据有限、医生和患者偏好的差异以及各医院可用诊断技术的差异所致。对这种异质性的进一步探索可能有助于确定一种将最大益处与最小负担相结合的策略。