Variations in outcome and costs among NHS providers for common surgical procedures: econometric analyses of routinely collected data

Authors: Street A, Gutacker N, Bojke C, Devlin N, Daidone S.

Journal: Health Services and Delivery Research Volume: 2 Issue: 1

Publication date: January 2014

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hsdr02010

Citation:

Street A, Gutacker N, Bojke C, Devlin N, Daidone S..Variations in outcome and costs among NHS providers for common surgical procedures: econometric analyses of routinely collected data. Health Serv Deliv Res 2014;2(1)


The project team have made available a spreadsheet showing provider performance data

Journal issues* can be purchased by completing the form.


The cost of reports varies according to number of pages and postage address. The minimum cost for a copy sent to a UK address is £30.00. We will contact you on receipt of your completed form to advise you of actual cost. If you have any queries, please contact nihredit@southampton.ac.uk.


*We regret that unfortunately we are unable to supply bound print copies of Health Technology Assessment published before issue 12:31. However, PDFs are available to print from the "Downloads" tab of the issue page.

Responses

No responses have been published. If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below.

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

Post your response

Surname

Forename

Middle Initial

Occupation / Job title

Affiliation / Employer

Email

Address

Other authors

For example, if you are responding as a team or group. Please ensure you include full names and separate these using commas

Statement of competing interests

We believe that readers should be aware of any competing interests (conflicts of interest).

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) define competing interests as including: financial relationships with industry (for example through employment, consultancies, stock, ownership, honoraria, and expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family; personal relationships; academic competition; and intellectual passion.

If yes, provide details below:

Enter response title

Enter response message

Enter CAPTCHA

Security key

Regenerate security key

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

The online version of this issue is currently unavailable.
The PDF version is available from the downloads section of this page.

Abstract

Background

It is important that NHS resources are used to their full extent, but efforts to reduce costs may have an adverse effect on patient outcomes. Our research is designed to provide a better understanding of the inter-relationship between costs and health outcomes among NHS providers (hospitals) for common surgical procedures.

Objectives

In England, patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are collected from patients undergoing one of four elective procedures: unilateral hip replacement, unilateral knee replacement, groin hernia repair and varicose vein surgery. We identify variation in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) across hospitals, assess the relationship between the cost and outcomes among NHS hospitals for these procedures, and determine the extent to which variations in outcomes and costs are due to differences in hospital performance.

Data sources

We link Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data with reference cost data and PROM data for patients having the four treatments between April 2009 and March 2010.

Methods

The first part of the empirical analysis focuses on variation in different dimensions of self-reported health status. We argue that each of the EuroQol-5D questionnaire (EQ-5D; European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions) dimensions should be assessed separately. Our graphical summary of the differential impact that hospitals have on PROs indicates the probability of reporting a given health outcome and shows how these probabilities vary across EQ–5D dimensions and hospitals. The second part of the empirical analysis focuses on the performance of hospitals and the inter-relationship between PROs and resource use.

Results

We find that poorer post-treatment health status is associated with lower initial health status, higher weighted Charlson score, more diagnoses and lower socioeconomic status. We find significantly unexplained variation among hospitals in outcomes for patients undergoing hip replacement, knee replacement or varicose vein surgery, but not for hernia patients. For all four treatments we find significant unexplained variation in resource use among hospitals, whether measured by cost of treatment or length of stay. This suggests that hospitals can improve their utilisation of resources.

Limitations

Our analyses are based on the HES. If data are missing from the medical record, or extracted and coded inaccurately, HES will contain errors. Hospitals should minimise these errors. Our study suffers from a large number of missing data, mainly because some hospitals were better than others at administering the baseline survey.

Conclusions

There is no general evidence that hospitals with lower resource use have worse health outcomes. There is a significant positive correlation for varicose veins, but this is sensitive to the choice of resource use and PRO measures. For hip and knee replacement the correlation is either insignificant or negative (depending on the resource use and PRO measures), implying that promoting health outcomes and controlling costs are not contradictory objectives. Indeed, we are able to identify hospitals with better than expected outcomes where resource use is below average. Future research should address how to handle missing data, evaluate hospital performance within the broader health economy, communicate PROMs to prospective patients, evaluate the impact of PROMs on patient choice and provider behaviour and evaluate PROMs for people with chronic conditions.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Service and Delivery Research programme.

Share this page

Email this page
Publication updates

If you would like to receive information on publications and the latest news, click below to sign up.