[The economic challenges of polytrauma care]

[Costs and proceeds from patients admitted via the emergency room with mild craniocerebral trauma]

The introduction of the diagnosis-related groups (DRG) in 2003 radically changed the billing of the treatment costs. From the very beginning, trauma surgeons questioned whether the introduction of the DRG could have a negative impact on the care of the severely injured. "Trauma centers in need" was the big catchword warning against shortfalls at trauma centers due to the billing via DRG. This situation was confirmed in the first publications after introduction of the DRG, showing a clearly deficient level of care of polytrauma cases. Over the years, adjustments have led to an improvement in the remuneration for polytraumatized patients. In the emergency room, polytrauma is not always the final diagnosis. A considerable proportion of patients are only slightly injured, but must be admitted via the emergency room due to the circumstances of the accident or suspected diagnosis at the scene of the accident to exclude life-threatening injuries. In this study, patients with the billing diagnosis of mild craniocerebral trauma were selected as an example. The proportion of these patients was 22% during the period of observation in 2017. For these patients, the proportional costs during treatment were calculated. It could be shown that 60.36% of the costs during a 2‑day treatment of these patients were incurred in the emergency room. Costs for material and personnel could not be considered. Despite not including these expenses, the costs were never covered for any of these patients. For patients with slight injuries after trauma management in the emergency room, the present adjustments to the DRG system by increasing the basic case value seem to be insufficient. Additional remuneration for these patients seems absolutely justified to further ensure adequate quality of care.

Change of initial and ICU treatment over time in trauma patients. An analysis from the TraumaRegister DGU®

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines have been standardized for pre- and in-hospital trauma management in the last decades. Therefore, it is known that prehospital management has changed significantly. Furthermore, in-hospital course may be altered to reduce complications and length of stay (LOS). However, the development of trauma patient in-hospital management as well as LOS in the intensive care unit (ICU) has not been investigated systematically over a long-term period in Germany. Aim of our study is to examine the changes in in-hospital management and LOS in the ICU in moderately and severely injured patients.

METHODS

Patients documented in the TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU) of the German Trauma Society from 2000 to 2011 and admitted to ICU were included in this study. Demographic data, the pattern of injury, injury severity, duration of mechanical ventilation, LOS in the ICU, hospital LOS, and discharge destination were evaluated. The mean values and the standard deviations are shown. The constant variables were calculated with changes over time analyzed by linear regression analysis, and categorical variables were calculated with the chi-square test.

RESULTS

A total of 18,048 patients were analyzed. The rate of patients being intubated at the time of ICU admission decreased from 86.8 % in 2000 to 60.0 % in 2011 (p < 0.001). The time of mechanical ventilation decreased from 7.5 ± 10.5 to 4.7 ± 8.7 days. The intensive care unit LOS was reduced from 11.7 ± 12.8 to 9.0 ± 11.3 days and the length of hospital stay from 27.9 ± 28.7 to 21.1 ± 20.4 days (both p < 0.01). The ICU LOS remained stable in the subgroup of mechanically ventilated patients (12.7 ± 13.2 day in 2000, 12,6 ± 12.9 in 2011, p = 0.6), whereas it was reduced in non-mechanically ventilated patients (5.5 ± 6.8 days in 2000, 3.6 ± 4.5 days in 2011; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The reduction LOS in the analyzed dataset is mainly explained by the relevantly reduced rate of patients being intubated at the time of ICU admission. Our data demonstrate that trauma patients' in-hospital course is influenced by reduced intubation rate at the time of ICU admission.

[Description of the severely injured in the DRG system: is treatment of the severely injured still affordable?]

BACKGROUND

Due to the heterogeneity of severely injured patients (multiple trauma) it is difficult to assign them to homogeneic diagnosis-related groups (DRG). In recent years this has led to a systematic underfunding in the German reimbursement system (G-DRG) for cases of multiply injured patients. This project aimed to improve the reimbursement by modifying the case allocation algorithms of multiply injured patients within the G-DRG system.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of standardized G-DRG data according to §21 of the Hospital Reimbursement Act (§ 21 KHEntgG) including case-related cost data from 3,362 critically injured patients from 2007 and 2008 from 10 university hospitals and 7 large municipal hospitals was carried out. For 1,241 cases complementary detailed information was available from the trauma registry of the German Trauma Society to monitor the case allocation of multiply injured patients within the G-DRG system. Analysis of coding and grouping, performance of case allocation and the homogeneity of costs in the G-DRG versions 2008-2012 was carried out.

RESULTS

The results showed systematic underfunding of trauma patients in the G-DRG version 2008 but adequate cost covering in the majority of cases with the G-DRG versions 2011 and 2012. Cost coverage was foundfor multiply injured patients from the clinical viewpoint who were identified as multiple trauma by the G-DRG system. Some of the overfunded trauma patients had high intensive care costs. Also there was underfunding for multiple injured patients not identified as such in the G-DRG system.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific modifications of the G-DRG allocation structures could increase the appropriateness of reimbursement of multiply injured patients. Data-based analysis is an essential prerequisite for a constructive development of the G-DRG system and a necessary tool for the active participation of medical specialist societies.

Acute costs and predictors of higher treatment costs of trauma in New South Wales, Australia

BACKGROUND

Accurate economic data are fundamental for improving current funding models and ultimately in promoting the efficient delivery of services. The financial burden of a high trauma casemix to designated trauma centres in Australia has not been previously determined, and there is some evidence that the episode funding model used in Australia results in the underfunding of trauma.

AIM

To describe the costs of acute trauma admissions in trauma centres, identify predictors of higher treatment costs and cost variance in New South Wales (NSW), Australia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data linkage of admitted trauma patient and financial data provided by 12 Level 1 NSW trauma centres for the 08/09 financial year was performed. Demographic, injury details and injury scores were obtained from trauma registries. Individual patient general ledger costs (actual trauma patient costs), Australian Refined Diagnostic Related Groups (AR-DRG) and state-wide average costs (which form the basis of funding) were obtained. The actual costs incurred by the hospital were then compared with the state-wide AR-DRG average costs. Multivariable multiple linear regression was used for identifying predictors of costs.

RESULTS

There were 17,522 patients, the average per patient cost was $10,603 and the median was $4628 (interquartile range: $2179-10,148). The actual costs incurred by trauma centres were on average $134 per bed day above AR-DRG costs-determined costs. Falls, road trauma and violence were the highest causes of total cost. Motor cyclists and pedestrians had higher median costs than motor vehicle occupants. As a result of greater numbers, patients with minor injury had comparable total costs with those generated by patients with severe injury. However the median cost of severely injured patients was nearly four times greater. The count of body regions injured, sex, length of stay, serious traumatic brain injury and admission to the Intensive Care Unit were significantly associated with increased costs (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

This multicentre trauma costing study demonstrated the feasibility of trauma registry and financial data linkage. Discrepancies between the observed costs of care in these 12 trauma centres and the NSW average AR-DRG costs suggest that trauma care is currently underfunded in NSW.

Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) over-triage and the financial implications for major trauma centres in NSW, Australia

Background

In NSW Australia, a formal trauma system including the use of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) has existed for over 20 years. Despite providing many advantages in NSW, HEMS patients are frequently over-triaged; leading to financial implications for major trauma centres that receive HEMS patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the financial implications of HEMS over-triage from the perspective of major trauma centres in NSW.

Methods

The study sample included all trauma patients transported via HEMS to 12 major trauma centres in NSW during the period: 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009. Clinical data were gathered from individual hospital trauma registries and merged with financial information obtained from casemix units at respective hospitals. HEMS over-triage was estimated based on the local definition of minor to moderate trauma (ISS≤12) and hospital length of stay of less than 24 hrs. The actual treatment costs were determined and compared to state-wide peer group averages to obtain estimates of potential funding discrepancies.

Results

A total of 707 patients transported by HEMS were identified, including 72% pre-hospital (PH; n=507) and 28% inter-hospital (IH; n=200) transports. Over-triage was estimated at 51% for PH patients and 29% for IH patients. Compared to PH patients, IH patients were more costly to treat on average (IH: $42,604; PH: $25,162), however PH patients were more costly overall ($12,329,618 [PH]; $8,265,152 [IH]). When comparing actual treatment costs to peer group averages we found potential funding discrepancies ranging between 4% and 32% across patient groups. Using a sensitivity analysis, the potential funding discrepancy increased with increasing levels of over-triage.

Conclusions

HEMS patients are frequently over-triaged in NSW, leading to funding implications for major trauma centres. In general, HEMS patient treatment costs are higher than the peer group average and the potential funding discrepancy varies by injury severity and the type of transport performed. Although severely injured HEMS patients are more costly to treat, HEMS patients with minor injuries make up the majority of HEMS transports and have larger relative potential funding discrepancies. Future episode funding models need to account for the variability of trauma patients and the proportion of patients transported via HEMS.

[Comparison of early total care (ETC) and damage control orthopedics (DCO) in the treatment of multiple trauma with femoral shaft fractures: benefit and costs]

INTRODUCTION

Femoral fractures are common injuries in multiple trauma patients. The treatment concept of damage control orthopedics (DCO) is in competition with the concept of early total care (ETC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a retrospective study (2003-2007) 73 multiple trauma patients with femoral shaft fractures were included. The cohort was subdivided according to the Injury Severity Score (ISS) (16-24, 25-39 and more than 40) and treatment strategy (ETC versus DCO). Patients were analyzed for outcome and cost aspects.

RESULTS

In the patient group with an ISS 16-24 ventilation time and intensive care treatment were longer after DCO treatment, overall costs and deficient cost cover were higher in the DCO group. In the patient group with an ISS 25-39 cost aspects showed a higher cover deficient in the DCO group.

CONCLUSION

From an economic point of view the cost deficits for the ETC group were lower than in the DCO group. The treatment strategy should be selected by the pattern of injuries. The costs should be addressed by the Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System (INEK).