ObjectivePatients admitted as emergencies to hospitals at the weekend have higher death rates than patients admitted on weekdays. This may be because the restricted service availability at weekends leads to selection of patients with greater average severity of illness. We examined volumes and rates of hospital admissions and deaths across the week for patients presenting to emergency services through two routes: (a) hospital Accident and Emergency departments, which are open throughout the week; and (b) services in the community, for which availability is more restricted at weekends.MethodRetrospective observational study of all 140 non-specialist acute hospital Trusts in England analyzing 12,670,788 Accident and Emergency attendances and 4,656,586 emergency admissions (940,859 direct admissions from primary care and 3,715,727 admissions through Accident and Emergency) between April 2013 and February 2014.Emergency attendances and admissions to hospital and deaths in any hospital within 30 days of attendance or admission were compared for weekdays and weekends.ResultsSimilar numbers of patients attended Accident and Emergency on weekends and weekdays. There were similar numbers of deaths amongst patients attending Accident and Emergency on weekend days compared with weekdays (378.0 vs. 388.3). Attending Accident and Emergency at the weekend was not associated with a significantly higher probability of death (risk-adjusted OR: 1.010).Proportionately fewer patients who attended Accident and Emergency at weekend were admitted to hospital (27.5% vs. 30.0%) and it is only amongst the subset of patients attending Accident and Emergency who were selected for admission to hospital that the probability of dying was significantly higher at the weekend (risk-adjusted OR: 1.054).The average volume of direct admissions from services in the community was 61% lower on weekend days compared to weekdays (1317 vs. 3404). There were fewer deaths following direct admission on weekend days than weekdays (35.9 vs. 80.8). The mortality rate was significantly higher at weekends amongst direct admissions (risk-adjusted OR: 1.212) due to the proportionately greater reduction in admissions relative to deaths.ConclusionsThere are fewer deaths following hospital admission at weekends. Higher mortality rates at weekends are found only amongst the subset of patients who are admitted. The reduced availability of primary care services and the higher Accident and Emergency admission threshold at weekends mean fewer and sicker patients are admitted at weekends than during the week. Extending services in hospitals and in the community at weekends may increase the number of emergency admissions and therefore lower mortality, but may not reduce the absolute number of deaths.

Hospital readmissions receive increasing interest from policy makers because reducing unnecessary readmissions has the potential to simultaneously improve quality and save costs. This paper reviews readmission policies in Denmark, England, Germany and the United States (Medicare system). The suggested roadmap enables researchers and policy makers to systematically compare and analyse readmission policies. We find considerable differences across countries. In Germany, the readmission policy aims to avoid unintended consequences of the introduction of DRG-based payment; it focuses on readmissions of individual patients and hospitals receive only one DRG-based payment for both the initial and the re-admission. In Denmark, England and the US readmission policies aim at quality improvement and focus on readmission rates. In Denmark, readmission rates are publicly reported but payments are not adjusted in relation to readmissions. In England and the US, financial incentives penalise hospitals with readmission rates above a certain benchmark. In England, this benchmark is defined through local clinical review, while it is based on the risk-adjusted national average in the US. At present, not enough evidence exists to give recommendations on the optimal design of readmission policies. The roadmap can be a tool for systematically assessing how elements of other countries' readmission policies can potentially be adopted to improve national policies.

BackgroundHealth services across the world increasingly face pressures on the use of expensive hospital services. Better organisation and delivery of primary care has the potential to manage demand and reduce costs for hospital services, but routine primary care services are not open during evenings and weekends.Extended access (evening and weekend opening) is hypothesized to reduce pressure on hospital services from emergency department visits. However, the existing evidence-base is weak, largely focused on emergency out-of-hours services, and analysed using a before-and after-methodology without effective comparators.Methods and FindingsThroughout 2014, 56 primary care practices (346,024 patients) in Greater Manchester, England, offered 7-day extended access, compared with 469 primary care practices (2,596,330 patients) providing routine access. Extended access included evening and weekend opening and served both urgent and routine appointments. To assess the effects of extended primary care access on hospital services, we apply a difference-in-differences analysis using hospital administrative data from 2011 to 2014. Propensity score matching techniques were used to match practices without extended access to practices with extended access. Differences in the change in “minor” patient-initiated emergency department visits per 1,000 population were compared between practices with and without extended access.Populations registered to primary care practices with extended access demonstrated a 26.4% relative reduction (compared to practices without extended access) in patient-initiated emergency department visits for “minor” problems (95% CI -38.6% to -14.2%, absolute difference: -10,933 per year, 95% CI -15,995 to -5,866), and a 26.6% (95% CI -39.2% to -14.1%) relative reduction in costs of patient-initiated visits to emergency departments for minor problems (absolute difference: -£767,976, -£1,130,767 to -£405,184). There was an insignificant relative reduction of 3.1% in total emergency department visits (95% CI -6.4% to 0.2%). Our results were robust to several sensitivity checks. A lack of detailed cost reporting of the running costs of extended access and an inability to capture health outcomes and other health service impacts constrain the study from assessing the full cost-effectiveness of extended access to primary care.ConclusionsThe study found that extending access was associated with a reduction in emergency department visits in the first 12 months. The results of the research have already informed the decision by National Health Service England to extend primary care access across Greater Manchester from 2016. However, further evidence is needed to understand whether extending primary care access is cost-effective and sustainable.

BackgroundStudies finding higher mortality rates for patients admitted to hospital at weekends rely on routine administrative data to adjust for risk of death, but these data may not adequately capture severity of illness. We examined how rates of patient arrival at accident and emergency (A&E) departments by ambulance—a marker of illness severity—were associated with in-hospital mortality by day and time of attendance.MethodsRetrospective observational study of 3 027 946 admissions to 140 non-specialist hospital trusts in England between April 2013 and February 2014. Patient admissions were linked with A&E records containing mode of arrival and date and time of attendance. We classified arrival times by day of the week and daytime (07:00 to 18:59) versus night (19:00 to 06:59 the following day). We examined the association with in-hospital mortality within 30 days using multivariate logistic regression.ResultsOver the week, 20.9% of daytime arrivals were in the highest risk quintile compared with 18.5% for night arrivals. Daytime arrivals on Sundays contained the highest proportion of patients in the highest risk quintile at 21.6%. Proportions of admitted patients brought in by ambulance were substantially higher at night and higher on Saturday (61.1%) and Sunday (60.1%) daytimes compared with other daytimes in the week (57.0%). Without adjusting for arrival by ambulance, risk-adjusted mortality for patients arriving at night was higher than for daytime attendances on Wednesday (0.16 percentage points). Compared with Wednesday daytime, risk-adjusted mortality was also higher on Thursday night (0.15 percentage points) and increased throughout the weekend from Saturday daytime (0.16 percentage points) to Sunday night (0.26 percentage points). After adjusting for arrival by ambulance, the raised mortality only reached statistical significance for patients arriving at A&E on Sunday daytime (0.17 percentage points).ConclusionUsing conventional risk-adjustment methods, there appears to be a higher risk of mortality following emergency admission to hospital at nights and at weekends. After accounting for mode of arrival at hospital, this pattern changes substantially, with no increased risk of mortality following admission at night or for any period of the weekend apart from Sunday daytime. This suggests that risk-adjustment based on inpatient administrative data does not adequately account for illness severity and that elevated mortality at weekends and at night reflects a higher proportion of more severely ill patients arriving by ambulance at these times.

Despite growing adoption of pay-for-performance (P4P) programmes in health care, there is remarkably little evidence on the cost-effectiveness of such schemes. We review the limited number of previous studies and critique the frameworks adopted and the narrow range of costs and outcomes considered, before proposing a new more comprehensive framework, which we apply to the first P4P scheme introduced for hospitals in England. We emphasise that evaluations of cost-effectiveness need to consider who the residual claimant is on any cost savings, the possibility of positive and negative spillovers, and whether performance improvement is a transitory or investment activity. Our application to the Advancing Quality initiative demonstrates that the incentive payments represented less than half of the £ 13 m total programme costs. By generating approximately 5200 quality-adjusted life years and £ 4.4 m of savings in reduced length of stay, we find that the programme was a cost-effective use of resources in its first 18 months.

Short-term relative reductions in mortality for conditions linked to financial incentives in hospitals participating in a pay-for-performance program in England were not maintained.

ObjectivesTo evaluate a multidisciplinary team (MDT) case management intervention, at the individual (direct effects of intervention) and practice levels (potential spillover effects).DesignDifference-in-differences design with multiple intervention start dates, analysing hospital admissions data. In secondary analyses, we stratified individual-level results by risk score.SettingSingle clinical commissioning group (CCG) in the UK's National Health Service (NHS).ParticipantsAt the individual level, we matched 2049 intervention patients using propensity scoring one-to-one with control patients. At the practice level, 30 practices were compared using a natural experiment through staged implementation.InterventionPractice Integrated Care Teams (PICTs), using MDT case management of high-risk patients together with a summary record of care versus usual care.Direct and indirect outcome measuresPrimary measures of intervention effects were accident and emergency (A&E) visits; inpatient non-elective stays, 30-day re-admissions; inpatient elective stays; outpatient visits; and admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Secondary measures included inpatient length of stay; total cost of secondary care services; and patient satisfaction (at the practice level only).ResultsAt the individual level, we found slight, clinically trivial increases in inpatient non-elective admissions (+0.01 admissions per patient per month; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.01. Effect size (ES): 0.02) and 30-day re-admissions (+0.00; 0.00 to 0.01. ES: 0.03). We found no indication that highest risk patients benefitted more from the intervention. At the practice level, we found a small decrease in inpatient non-elective admissions (−0.63 admissions per 1000 patients per month; −1.17 to −0.09. ES: −0.24). However, this result did not withstand a robustness check; the estimate may have absorbed some differences in underlying practice trends.ConclusionsThe intervention does not meet its primary aim, and the clinical significance and cost-effectiveness of these small practice-level effects is debatable. There is an ongoing need to develop effective ways to reduce unnecessary attendances in secondary care for the high-risk population.

Traditional provider payment mechanisms may not create appropriate incentives for integrating care. Alternative payment mechanisms, such as bundled payments, have been introduced without uniform definitions, and existing payment typologies are not suitable for describing them. We use a systematic review combined with example integrated care programmes identified from practice in the Horizon2020 SELFIE project to inform a new typology of payment mechanisms for integrated care. The typology describes payments in terms of the scope of payment (Target population, Time, Sectors), the participation of providers (Provider coverage, Financial pooling/sharing), and the single provider/patient involvement (Income, Multiple disease/needs focus, and Quality measurement). There is a gap between rhetoric on the need for new payment mechanisms and those implemented in practice. Current payments for integrated care are mostly sector- and disease-specific, with questionable impact on those with the most need for integrated care. The typology provides a basis to improve financial incentives supporting more effective and efficient integrated care systems.