The impact of adult major trauma centre status on paediatric trauma activity

Financial analysis of revision knee surgery at a tertiary referral centre as classified according to the Revision Knee Complexity Classification (RKCC)

BACKGROUND

Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) can be complex, with greater costs to the treating hospital than primary TKA. A rTKA regional network has been proposed in England. The aim of this work was to accurately quantify current costs and reimbursement for the rTKA service and to assess whether costs are proportional to case complexity at a tertiary referral centre within the National Health Service (NHS).

METHODS

A review of all rTKA performed at our institution over two consecutive financial years (2017-2019) was performed. Cases were classified according to the Revision Knee Complexity Classification (RKCC) and by mode of failure; "infected" and "non-infected". Financial data was acquired through Patient-Level Information and Costing System (PLICS). The primary outcome was the financial difference between tariff and cost per episode. Comparisons between groups were analysed using analysis of variance and two-tailed unpaired t-test as appropriate.

RESULTS

159 patients underwent 188 rTKA procedures. Length of stay and cost significantly increased between complexity groups (p < 0.0001) and for infected revisions (p < 0.0001). All groups sustained a mean deficit but this significantly increased with revision complexity (from £1,903 to £5,269 per case) and for infected revisions. The total deficit to the Trust for the two-year rTKA service was £667,091.

CONCLUSIONS

The current level of NHS reimbursement are inadequate for centres that offer rTKA and should be more closely aligned to case complexity. An increase in the most complex rTKA at major revision centres will undoubtedly place an even greater strain on the finances of these units.

Validity of the Best Practice Tariff in paediatric major trauma: A retrospective cohort study from a level 1 children's major trauma centre

INTRODUCTION

The Best Practice Tariff (BPT) in major trauma awards Major Trauma Centres (MTCs) a financial incentive when predefined standards of care are met. However, no tailored criteria exist with regards to the reimbursement policy in paediatric major trauma. In this study, we aim to examine the utility of the paediatric Major Trauma BPT and identify predictors of additional resource utilisation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cohort study encompassed all paediatric major trauma calls (N = 682) presenting to a designated combined adult and paediatric MTC between July 2014 and June 2017. Patient demographics, admission pattern, injury parameters, length of stay (LOS) and the need for operative management were collected. Patients approved for the BPT uplift payment (BPT group) were compared with the cohort of children not qualifying (non-BPT group).

RESULTS

Overall, less than a quarter (23.2%) of the trauma population qualified for the BPT. The proportion of patients requiring operative intervention and CT scanning in the BPT group was significantly higher (p<0.001). These children also attained a higher ISS (median, 13.5 vs. 0, p <0.001) and required longer hospitalisation. Following a Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, a cut off ISS score > 8 demonstrated an excellent predictive value in identifying children qualifying for BPT (true positive and false positive rates: 90% and 10.7%). However, a subgroup analysis including the more severely injured children (ISS >8) not qualifying for the uplift payment revealed that equally substantial resource went into their management - 42.9% needed surgical intervention and 57.1% a CT scan.

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrated that BPT in paediatric major trauma is a valuable reimbursement; however, our findings also unveiled a cohort deemed ineligible for BPT despite the high costs accrued. Re-evaluation of the remuneration criteria of paediatric major trauma networks with an alternative, more inclusive reimbursement policy is needed.

Are Older Adults With Hip Fractures Disadvantaged in Level 1 Trauma Centers?

BACKGROUND

Large regional hospitals achieve good outcomes for patients with complex conditions. However, recent studies have suggested that some patient groups might not benefit from treatment in higher-level trauma centers.

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that older adults with isolated hip fractures experience delayed surgical treatment and worse clinical outcomes when treated in higher-level trauma centers.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using a statewide longitudinal database that captured 98% of inpatients within California (2007-2011).

SUBJECTS

All older adults (aged 65 y and above) admitted with an isolated hip fracture who did not require interhospital transfer.

MEASURES

Days to operation, length of stay, inhospital mortality, 30-day risk of unplanned readmission, 30-day venous thromboembolism, decubitus ulcers, and pneumonia.

RESULTS

There were 91,401 patients, 6.1% of whom were treated in a level 1 trauma center (L1TC), 17.7% in a level 2 trauma center (L2TC), and 70.2% in a nontrauma center (NTC). Within multivariable logistic and generalized linear regression models, patients treated in L1TCs underwent surgery later (predicted mean difference: 0.30 d; 95% CI, 0.08-0.53), had prolonged inpatient stays (0.99 d, 0.40-1.59), and had higher odds of both 30-day readmission (aOR=1.62; 95% CI, 1.35-1.93) and venous thromboembolism (aOR=1.32, 1.01-1.74) relative to NTCs. There were no differences in mortality, decubitus ulcers, or pneumonias. L2TCs were not different from NTCs across any of the measured outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Older adults with hip fractures may be disadvantaged in L1TCs. Further research should aim to develop our understanding of this disparity to ensure that all patient groups benefit from the resources and expertise available within these hospitals.

Regionalisation of trauma care in England

AIMS

We aimed to determine whether there is evidence of improved patient outcomes in Major Trauma Centres following the regionalisation of trauma care in England.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An observational study was undertaken using the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN), Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and national death registrations. The outcome measures were indicators of the quality of trauma care, such as treatment by a senior doctor and clinical outcomes, such as mortality in hospital.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

A total of 20 181 major trauma cases were reported to TARN during the study period, which was 270 days before and after each hospital became a Major Trauma Centre. Following regionalisation of trauma services, all indicators of the quality of care improved, fewer patients required secondary transfer between hospitals and a greater proportion were discharged with a Glasgow Outcome Score of "good recovery". In this early post-implementation analysis, there were a number of apparent process improvements (e.g. time to CT) but no differences in either crude or adjusted mortality. The overall number of deaths following trauma in England did not change following the national reconfiguration of trauma services. Evidence from other countries that have regionalised trauma services suggests that further benefits may become apparent after a period of maturing of the trauma system. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1253-61.