No abstract

ObjectiveTo assess trends in 30-day emergency readmission rates across England over one decade.DesignRetrospective study design.Setting150 non-specialist hospital trusts in England.Participants23 069 134 patients above 18 years of age who were readmitted following an initial admission (n=62 584 297) between April 2006 and February 2016.Primary and secondary outcomesWe examined emergency admissions that occurred within 30 days of discharge from hospital (‘emergency readmissions’) as a measure of healthcare quality. Presented are overall readmission rates, and disaggregated by the nature of the indexed admission, including whether it was elective or emergency, and by clinical health condition recorded. All rates were risk-adjusted for patient age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, comorbidities and length of stay.ResultsThe average risk-adjusted, 30-day readmission rate increased from 6.56% in 2006/2007 to 6.76% (P<0.01) in 2012/2013, followed by a small decrease to 6.64% (P<0.01) in 2015/2016. Emergency readmissions for patients discharged following elective procedures decreased by 0.13% (P<0.05), whereas those following emergency admission increased by 1.27% (P<0.001). Readmission rates for hip or knee replacements decreased (−1.29%; P<0.001); for acute myocardial infarction (−0.04%; P<0.49), stroke (+0.62%; P<0.05), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (+0.41%; P<0.05) and heart failure (+0.15%; P<0.05) remained stable; and for pneumonia (+2.72%; P<0.001), diabetes (+7.09%; P<0.001), cholecystectomy (+1.86%; P<0.001) and hysterectomy (+2.54%; P<0.001) increased.ConclusionsOverall, emergency readmission rates in England remained relatively stable across the observation period, with trends of slight increases contained post 2012/2013. However, there were large variations in trends across clinical areas, with some experiencing marked increases in readmission rates. This highlights the need to better understand variations in outcomes across clinical subgroups to allow for targeted interventions that will ensure highest standards of care provided for all patients.

No abstract

No abstract

The bundling of clinical expertise in centralised treatment centres is considered an effective intervention to improve quality and efficiency of acute stroke care. In 2010, 8 London Trusts were converted into Hyper Acute Stroke Units. The intention was to discontinue acute stroke services in 22 London hospitals. However, in reality, provision of services declined only gradually, and 2 years later, 15% of all patients were still treated in Trusts without a Hyper Acute Stroke Unit. This study evaluates the impact of centralising London's stroke care on 7 process and outcome indicators using a difference-in-difference analysis with two treatment groups, Hyper Acute and discontinued London Trusts, and data on all stroke patients recorded in the hospital episode statistics database from April 2006 to April 2014. The policy resulted in improved thrombolysis treatment and lower rates of pneumonia in acute units. However, 6 indicators worsened in the Trusts that were meant to discontinue services, including deaths within 7 and 30 days, readmissions, brain scan rates, and thrombolysis treatment. The reasons for these results are difficult to uncover and could be related to differences in patient complexity, data recording, or quality of care. The findings highlight that actual implementation of centralisation policies needs careful monitoring and evaluation.

Governments across low-income and middle-income countries have pledged to achieve universal health coverage by 2030, which comes at a time where healthcare systems are subjected to multiple and persistent pressures, such as poor access to care services and insufficient medical supplies. While the political willingness to provide universal health coverage is a step into the right direction, the benefits of it will depend on the quality of healthcare services provided. In this analysis paper, we ask whether there are any lessons that could be learnt from the English National Health Service, a healthcare system that has been providing comprehensive and high-quality universal health coverage for over 70 years. The key areas identified relate to the development of a coherent strategy to improve quality, to boost public health as a measure to reduce disease burden, to adopt evidence-based priority setting methods that ensure efficient spending of financial resources, to introduce an independent way of inspecting and regulating providers, and to allow for task-shifting, specifically in regions where staff retention is low.

No abstract

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.