Area level impacts on emergency hospital admissions of the integrated care and support pioneer programme in England: difference-in-differences analysis

Can family doctor system improve health service utilization for patients with hypertension and diabetes in China? A difference-in-differences study

BACKGROUND

Family doctors, serving as gatekeepers, are the core of primary health care to meet basic health needs, provide accessible care, and improve attainable health. The study objective was to evaluate the impact of the family doctor system on health service utilization among patients with hypertension and diabetes in China.

METHODS

Difference-in-Differences (DID) models are constructed to estimate the net effect of the family doctor system, based on the official health management records and medical insurance claim data of patients with hypertension and diabetes in an eastern city of China.

RESULTS

The family doctor system significantly increases follow-up visits (hypertension patients coef. = 0.13, diabetes patients coef. = 0.08, both p < 0.001) and outpatient visits (hypertension patients coef. = 0.08, diabetes patients coef. = 0.05, both p < 0.001) among the contracted compared to the non-contracted. The proportion of outpatient visits in community health centers among the contracted significantly rose (hypertension patients coef. = 0.02, diabetes patients coef. = 0.04, both p < 0.001) due to significantly more outpatient visits in community health centers and fewer in secondary and tertiary hospitals. It also significantly mitigates the increase in inpatient admissions among hypertension patients but not among diabetes patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The examined family doctor system strengthens primary care, both by increasing follow-up visits and outpatient visits and promoting a rationalized structure of outpatient utilization in China.

Integrated Care in England - what can we Learn from a Decade of National Pilot Programmes?

Introduction

For more than a decade the English NHS has pursued integrated care through three national pilot programmes. The independent evaluators of these programmes here identify several common themes that inform the development of integrated care.

Description

The three pilot programmes shared the aim of better coordination between hospital and community-based health services and between health and social care. Each programme recruited local pilot sites that designed specific interventions to support inter-professional and inter-organisational collaboration.The pilots were highly heterogenous and results varied both within and between the three programmes. While staff were generally positive about their achievements, pilots had mixed success especially in reducing unplanned hospital admissions. Common facilitators to achieving pilots' objectives included effective senior leadership and shared values, simple interventions and additional funding. Barriers included short timescales, poor professional engagement, information and data sharing problems, and conflicts with changing national policy.

Discussion

There was little stable or shared understanding of what 'integrated care' meant resulting in different practices and priorities. An increasing focus on reducing unplanned hospital use among national sponsors created a mismatch in expectations between local and national actors.

Conclusion

Pilots in all three national programmes made some headway against their objectives but were limited in their impact on unplanned hospital admissions.

Comparison of the impact of two national health and social care integration programmes on emergency hospital admissions

Background

Policy-makers expect that integration of health and social care will improve user and carer experience and reduce avoidable hospital use. [We] evaluate the impact on emergency hospital admissions of two large nationally-initiated service integration programmes in England: the Pioneer (November 2013 to March 2018) and Vanguard (January 2015 to March 2018) programmes. The latter had far greater financial and expert support from central agencies.

Methods

Of the 206 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England, 51(25%) were involved in the Pioneer programme only, 22(11%) were involved in the Vanguard programme only and 13(6%) were involved in both programmes. We used quasi-experimental methods to compare monthly counts of emergency admissions between four groups of CCGs, before and after the introduction of the two programmes.

Results

CCGs involved in the programmes had higher monthly hospital emergency admission rates than non-participants prior to their introduction [7.9 (95% CI:7.8–8.1) versus 7.5 (CI: 7.4–7.6) per 1000 population]. From 2013 to 2018, there was a 12% (95% CI:9.5–13.6%) increase in emergency admissions in CCGs not involved in either programme while emergency admissions in CCGs in the Pioneer and Vanguard programmes increased by 6.4% (95% CI: 3.8–9.0%) and 8.8% (95% CI:4.5–13.1%), respectively. CCGs involved in both initiatives experienced a smaller increase of 3.5% (95% CI:-0.3–7.2%). The slowdown largely occurred in the final year of both programmes.

Conclusions

Health and social care integration programmes can mitigate but not prevent rises in emergency admissions over the longer-term. Greater financial and expert support from national agencies and involvement in multiple integration initiatives can have cumulative effects.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06692-x.

ADL/ IADL dependencies and unmet healthcare needs in older persons: A nationwide survey

PURPOSE

To determine the impact of overall and component-wise activities for daily living (ADL) as well as instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) dependencies on unmet healthcare needs in older adults.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cross-sectional analyses were performed based on a National Survey of Older Koreans. A total of 10,082 participants aged ≥ 65 years were included. All data were collected through standardized, personal interviews with participants and their representatives. Logistic regression was used to analyse the risk of unmet healthcare needs, with or without adjustment.

RESULTS

Amongst all participants, 734 (7.2%) had ADL dependency. Participants with ADL dependency had lower income, education level, and perceived health status (p<0.001). The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for the risk of unmet healthcare needs was 1.52 (95%, confidence interval [CI] 1.19-1.95) for ADL and 1.54 (95%, CI 1.28-1.86) for IADL. When men have ADL dependency, aOR of unmet healthcare needs was higher than that of women (aOR 1.89, 95% CI 1.15 - 3.11; aOR 1.65, 95% CI 1.15 - 2.36, respectively) and IADL showed the same trend. Any dependency on ADL or IADL was associated with higher risk of unmet healthcare needs, whether adjusted or not (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Older adults with ADL or IADL dependency had higher risks of unmet healthcare needs than their independent counterparts. In addition to mobility problems, other components were related to unmet healthcare needs. Therefore, to reduce unmet healthcare needs, integration of health and social care that supports ADL or IADL dependency should be considered.