Are heart attacks deadlier on weekends? Evidence of weekend effect in Brazil

This article aims to examine the effects of weekend admission on in-hospital mortality for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in Brazil. Information from the Hospital Information System of the Unified Health System (SIH/SUS) of urgently admitted patients diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) between 2008 and 2018 was used, made available through the Hospital Admission Authorization (AIH). Multivariable logistic regression models, controlling for observable patient characteristics, hospital characteristics and year and hospital-fixed effects, were used. The results were consistent with the existence of the weekend effect. For the model adjusted with the inclusion of all controls, the chance of death observed for individuals hospitalized on the weekend is 14% higher. Our results indicated that there is probably an important variation in the quality of hospital care depending on the day the patient is hospitalized. Weekend admissions were associated with in-hospital AMI mortality in Brazil. Future research should analyze the possible channels behind the weekend effect to support public policies that can effectively make healthcare equitable.

Increasing specialist intensity at weekends to improve outcomes for patients undergoing emergency hospital admission: the HiSLAC two-phase mixed-methods study

Background

NHS England’s 7-day services policy comprised 10 standards to improve access to quality health care across all days of the week. Six standards targeted hospital specialists on the assumption that their absence caused the higher mortality associated with weekend hospital admission: the ‘weekend effect’. The High-intensity Specialist-Led Acute Care (HiSLAC) collaboration investigated this using the implementation of 7-day services as a ‘natural experiment’.

Objectives

The objectives were to determine whether or not increasing specialist intensity at weekends improves outcomes for patients undergoing emergency hospital admission, and to explore mechanisms and cost-effectiveness.

Design

This was a two-phase mixed-methods observational study. Year 1 focused on developing the methodology. Years 2–5 included longitudinal research using quantitative and qualitative methods, and health economics.

Methods

A Bayesian systematic literature review from 2000 to 2017 quantified the weekend effect. Specialist intensity measured over 5 years used self-reported annual point prevalence surveys of all specialists in English acute hospital trusts, expressed as the weekend-to-weekday ratio of specialist hours per 10 emergency admissions. Hospital Episode Statistics from 2007 to 2018 provided trends in weekend-to-weekday mortality ratios. Mechanisms for the weekend effect were explored qualitatively through focus groups and on-site observations by qualitative researchers, and a two-epoch case record review across 20 trusts. Case-mix differences were examined in a single trust. Health economics modelling estimated costs and outcomes associated with increased specialist provision.

Results

Of 141 acute trusts, 115 submitted data to the survey, and 20 contributed 4000 case records for review and participated in qualitative research (involving interviews, and observations using elements of an ethnographic approach). Emergency department attendances and admissions have increased every year, outstripping the increase in specialist numbers; numbers of beds and lengths of stay have decreased. The reduction in mortality has plateaued; the proportion of patients dying after discharge from hospital has increased. Specialist hours increased between 2012/13 and 2017/18. Weekend specialist intensity is half that of weekdays, but there is no relationship with admission mortality. Patients admitted on weekends are sicker (they have more comorbid disease and more of them require palliative care); adjustment for severity of acute illness annuls the weekend effect. In-hospital care processes are slightly more efficient at weekends; care quality (errors, adverse events, global quality) is as good at weekends as on weekdays and has improved with time. Qualitative researcher assessments of hospital weekend quality concurred with case record reviewers at trust level. General practitioner referrals at weekends are one-third of those during weekdays and have declined further with time.

Limitations

Observational research, variable survey response rates and subjective assessments of care quality were compensated for by using a difference-in-difference analysis over time.

Conclusions

Hospital care is improving. The weekend effect is associated with factors in the community that precede hospital admission. Post-discharge mortality is increasing. Policy-makers should focus their efforts on improving acute and emergency care on a ‘whole-system’ 7-day approach that integrates social, community and secondary health care.

Future work

Future work should evaluate the role of doctors in hospital and community emergency care and investigate pathways to emergency admission and quality of care following hospital discharge.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Changes in weekend and weekday care quality of emergency medical admissions to 20 hospitals in England during implementation of the 7-day services national health policy

Background

In 2013, the English National Health Service launched the policy of 7-day services to improve care quality and outcomes for weekend emergency admissions.

Aims

To determine whether the quality of care of emergency medical admissions is worse at weekends, and whether this has changed during implementation of 7-day services.

Methods

Using data from 20 acute hospital Trusts in England, we performed randomly selected structured case record reviews of patients admitted to hospital as emergencies at weekends and on weekdays between financial years 2012–2013 and 2016–2017. Senior doctor (‘specialist’) involvement was determined from annual point prevalence surveys. The primary outcome was the rate of clinical errors. Secondary outcomes included error-related adverse event rates, global quality of care and four indicators of good practice.

Results

Seventy-nine clinical reviewers reviewed 4000 admissions, 800 in duplicate. Errors, adverse events and care quality were not significantly different between weekend and weekday admissions, but all improved significantly between epochs, particularly errors most likely influenced by doctors (clinical assessment, diagnosis, treatment, prescribing and communication): error rate OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.87; adverse event OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.69; care quality OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.87; all adjusted for age, sex and ethnicity. Postadmission in-hospital care processes improved between epochs and were better for weekend admissions (vital signs with National Early Warning Score and timely specialist review). Preadmission processes in the community were suboptimal at weekends and deteriorated between epochs (fewer family doctor referrals, more patients with chronic disease or palliative care designation).

Conclusions and implications

Hospital care quality of emergency medical admissions is not worse at weekends and has improved during implementation of the 7-day services policy. Causal pathways for the weekend effect may extend into the prehospital setting.

Holiday and weekend effects on mortality for acute myocardial infarction in Shanxi, China: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of holiday and weekend admission on in-hospital mortality for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in China.

METHODS

Patients with AMI in 31 tertiary hospitals in Shanxi, China from 2014 to 2017 were included (N = 54,968). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the effects of holiday and weekend admission on in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Compared to non-holiday and weekday admissions, holiday and weekend admissions, respectively, were associated with increases in risk-adjusted mortality rates. Chinese National Day was associated with an additional 10 deaths per 1000 admissions (95% confidence interval (CI): (0, 20))-a relative increase from baseline mortality of 64% (95% CI: (1%, 128%)). Sunday was associated with an additional 4 deaths per 1000 admissions (95% CI: (0, 7))-a relative increase from baseline mortality of 23% (95% CI: (3%, 45%)). We found no evidence of gender differences in holiday or weekend effects on mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Holiday and weekend admissions were associated with in-hospital AMI mortality. The admissions on Chinese National Day and Sunday contributed to the observed "holiday effect" and "weekend effect," respectively.

Publication and related bias in quantitative health services and delivery research: a multimethod study

Background

Bias in the publication and reporting of research findings (referred to as publication and related bias here) poses a major threat in evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making. Although this bias has been well documented in clinical research, little is known about its occurrence and magnitude in health services and delivery research.

Objectives

To obtain empirical evidence on publication and related bias in quantitative health services and delivery research; to examine current practice in detecting/mitigating this bias in health services and delivery research systematic reviews; and to explore stakeholders’ perception and experiences concerning such bias.

Methods

The project included five distinct but interrelated work packages. Work package 1 was a systematic review of empirical and methodological studies. Work package 2 involved a survey (meta-epidemiological study) of randomly selected systematic reviews of health services and delivery research topics (n = 200) to evaluate current practice in the assessment of publication and outcome reporting bias during evidence synthesis. Work package 3 included four case studies to explore the applicability of statistical methods for detecting such bias in health services and delivery research. In work package 4 we followed up four cohorts of health services and delivery research studies (total n = 300) to ascertain their publication status, and examined whether publication status was associated with statistical significance or perceived ‘positivity’ of study findings. Work package 5 involved key informant interviews with diverse health services and delivery research stakeholders (n = 24), and a focus group discussion with patient and service user representatives (n = 8).

Results

We identified only four studies that set out to investigate publication and related bias in health services and delivery research in work package 1. Three of these studies focused on health informatics research and one concerned health economics. All four studies reported evidence of the existence of this bias, but had methodological weaknesses. We also identified three health services and delivery research systematic reviews in which findings were compared between published and grey/unpublished literature. These reviews found that the quality and volume of evidence and effect estimates sometimes differed significantly between published and unpublished literature. Work package 2 showed low prevalence of considering/assessing publication (43%) and outcome reporting (17%) bias in health services and delivery research systematic reviews. The prevalence was lower among reviews of associations than among reviews of interventions. The case studies in work package 3 highlighted limitations in current methods for detecting these biases due to heterogeneity and potential confounders. Follow-up of health services and delivery research cohorts in work package 4 showed positive association between publication status and having statistically significant or positive findings. Diverse views concerning publication and related bias and insights into how features of health services and delivery research might influence its occurrence were uncovered through the interviews with health services and delivery research stakeholders and focus group discussion conducted in work package 5.

Conclusions

This study provided prima facie evidence on publication and related bias in quantitative health services and delivery research. This bias does appear to exist, but its prevalence and impact may vary depending on study characteristics, such as study design, and motivation for conducting the evaluation. Emphasis on methodological novelty and focus beyond summative assessments may mitigate/lessen the risk of such bias in health services and delivery research. Methodological and epistemological diversity in health services and delivery research and changing landscape in research publication need to be considered when interpreting the evidence. Collection of further empirical evidence and exploration of optimal health services and delivery research practice are required.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016052333 and CRD42016052366.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The weekend effect in kidney transplantation outcomes: a French cohort-based study

Numerous studies have reported a weekend effect on outcomes for diseases treated at hospitals. No study has been conducted in France for kidney transplantation. We therefore performed a cohort-based study to evaluate whether outcomes of kidney transplant recipients display a weekend effect. Data were extracted from the French DIVAT cohort. Patients aged 18 years and older, transplanted with a single kidney from deceased donors between 2005 and 2017 were studied. Linear regression, logistic regression, and cause-specific Cox model were used. Among the 6652 studied patients, 4653 patients were transplanted during weekdays (69.9%) versus 1999 during weekends (30.1%). The only statistically significant difference was the percentage of patients with vascular surgical complication(s) at 30 days: 13.3% in the weekend group versus 16.2% in the weekday group 0.79 (95% CI: 0.68; 0.92). We did not observe other significant differences for the other outcomes: patient or graft survival, the risk of acute rejection episodes, the 30-day percentage of urological complications, and the 1-year estimated glomerular filtration rate. Our study highlights a small protective weekend effect with less post-surgery vascular complications compared to weekdays. This paradox might be explained by a different handling of weekend transplantations.

Magnitude and modifiers of the weekend effect in hospital admissions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the magnitude of the weekend effect, defined as differences in patient outcomes between weekend and weekday hospital admissions, and factors influencing it.

DESIGN

A systematic review incorporating Bayesian meta-analyses and meta-regression.

DATA SOURCES

We searched seven databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2000 to April 2015, and updated the MEDLINE search up to November 2017. Eligibility criteria: primary research studies published in peer-reviewed journals of unselected admissions (not focusing on specific conditions) investigating the weekend effect on mortality, adverse events, length of hospital stay (LoS) or patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

For the systematic review, we included 68 studies (70 articles) covering over 640 million admissions. Of these, two-thirds were conducted in the UK (n=24) or USA (n=22). The pooled odds ratio (OR) for weekend mortality effect across admission types was 1.16 (95% credible interval 1.10 to 1.23). The weekend effect appeared greater for elective (1.70, 1.08 to 2.52) than emergency (1.11, 1.06 to 1.16) or maternity (1.06, 0.89 to 1.29) admissions. Further examination of the literature shows that these estimates are influenced by methodological, clinical and service factors: at weekends, fewer patients are admitted to hospital, those who are admitted are more severely ill and there are differences in care pathways before and after admission. Evidence regarding the weekend effect on adverse events and LoS is weak and inconsistent, and that on patient satisfaction is sparse. The overall quality of evidence for inferring weekend/weekday difference in hospital care quality from the observed weekend effect was rated as 'very low' based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework.

CONCLUSIONS

The weekend effect is unlikely to have a single cause, or to be a reliable indicator of care quality at weekends. Further work should focus on underlying mechanisms and examine care processes in both hospital and community.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016036487.

Does the 'Chinese New Year effect' exist? Hospital mortality in patients admitted to internal medicine departments during official consecutive holidays: a nationwide population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Our study aimed to compare the mortality risk among patients admitted to internal medicine departments during official consecutive holidays (using Chinese New Year holidays as an indicator) with that of weekend and weekday admissions.

DESIGN

Nationwide population-based cohort study.

SETTING

Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database.

PATIENTS

Patients admitted to internal medicine departments in acute care hospitals during January and February each year between 2001 and 2013 were identified. Admissions were categorised as: Chinese New Year holiday (n=10 779), weekend (n=35 870) or weekday admissions (n=143 529).

OUTCOME MEASURES

ORs for in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality were calculated using multivariate logistic regression with adjustment for confounders.

RESULTS

Both in-hospital and 30-day mortality were significantly higher for patients admitted during the Chinese New Year holidays and on weekends compared with those admitted on weekdays. Chinese New Year holiday admissions had a 38% and 40% increased risk of in-hospital (OR=1.38, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.50, p<0.001) and 30-day (OR=1.40, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.50, p<0.001) mortality, respectively, compared with weekday admissions. Weekend admissions had a 17% and 19% increased risk of in-hospital (OR=1.17, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.23, p<0.001) and 30-day (OR=1.19, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.24, p<0.001) mortality, respectively, compared with weekday admissions. Analyses stratified by principal diagnosis revealed that the increase in in-hospital mortality risk was highest for patients admitted on Chinese New Year holidays with a diagnosis of ischaemic heart disease (OR=3.43, 95% CI 2.46 to 4.80, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The mortality risk was highest for patients admitted during Chinese New Year holidays, followed by weekend admissions, and then weekday admissions. Further studies are necessary to identify the underlying causes and develop strategies to improve outcomes for patients admitted during official consecutive holidays.

Quality and safety of in-hospital care for acute medical patients at weekends: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The increased mortality risk associated with weekend admission to hospital (the 'weekend effect') has been reported across many health systems. More recently research has focused on causal mechanisms. Variations in the organisation and delivery of in-hospital care between weekends and weekdays have been identified, but this is not always to the detriment of weekend admissions, and the impact on mortality is uncertain. The insights of frontline staff and patients have been neglected. This article reports a qualitative study of patients and clinicians, to explore their views on quality and safety of care at weekends.

METHODS

We conducted focus groups and interviews with clinicians and patients with experience of acute medical care, recruited from three UK hospital Trusts. We analysed the data using a thematic analysis approach, aided by the use of NVivo, to explore quality and safety of care at weekends.

RESULTS

We held four focus groups and completed six in-depth interviews, with 19 clinicians and 12 patients. Four threats to quality and safety were identified as being more prominent at weekends, relating to i) the rescue and stabilisation of sick patients; ii) monitoring and responding to deterioration; iii) timely accurate management of the therapeutic pathway; iv) errors of omission and commission.

CONCLUSIONS

At weekends patients and staff are well aware of suboptimal staffing numbers, skill mix and access to resources at weekends, and identify that emergency admissions are prioritised over those already hospitalised. The consequences in terms of quality and safety and patient experience of care are undesirable. Our findings suggest the value of focusing on care processes and systems resilience over the weekends, and how these can be better supported, even in the limited resource environment that exists in many hospitals at weekends.

Sicker patients account for the weekend mortality effect among adult emergency admissions to a large hospital trust

Objective

To determine whether the higher weekend admission mortality risk is attributable to increased severity of illness.

Design

Retrospective analysis of 4 years weekend and weekday adult emergency admissions to a university teaching hospital in England.

Outcome measures

30-day postadmission weekend:weekday mortality ratios adjusted for severity of illness (baseline National Early Warning Score (NEWS)), routes of admission to hospital, transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) and demographics.

Results

Despite similar emergency department daily attendance rates, fewer patients were admitted on weekends (mean admission rate 91/day vs 120/day) because of fewer general practitioner referrals. Weekend admissions were sicker than weekday (mean NEWS 1.8 vs 1.7, p=0.008), more likely to undergo transfer to ICU within 24 hours (4.2% vs 3.0%), spent longer in hospital (median 3 days vs 2 days) and less likely to experience same-day discharge (17.2% vs 21.9%) (all p values <0.001).

The crude 30-day postadmission mortality ratio for weekend admission (OR=1.13; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.19) was attenuated using standard adjustment (OR=1.11; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.17). In patients for whom NEWS values were available (90%), the crude OR (1.07; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13) was not affected with standard adjustment. Adjustment using NEWS alone nullified the weekend effect (OR=1.02; 0.96–1.08).

NEWS completion rates were higher on weekends (91.7%) than weekdays (89.5%). Missing NEWS was associated with direct transfer to intensive care bypassing electronic data capture. Missing NEWS in non-ICU weekend patients was associated with a higher mortality and fewer same-day discharges than weekdays.

Conclusions

Patients admitted to hospital on weekends are sicker than those admitted on weekdays. The cause of the weekend effect may lie in community services.