Prediction Models for Future High-Need High-Cost Healthcare Use: a Systematic Review

Background In an effort to improve both quality of care and cost-effectiveness, various care-management programmes have been developed for high-need high-cost (HNHC) patients. Early identification of patients at risk of becoming HNHC (i.e. case finding) is crucial to a programme’s success. We aim to systematically identify prediction models predicting future HNHC healthcare use in adults, to describe their predictive performance and to assess their applicability. Methods Ovid MEDLINE® All, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and Google Scholar were systematically searched from inception through January 31, 2021. Risk of bias and methodological quality assessment was performed through the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Results Of 5890 studies, 60 studies met inclusion criteria. Within these studies, 313 unique models were presented using a median development cohort size of 20,248 patients (IQR 5601–174,242). Predictors were derived from a combination of data sources, most often claims data (n = 37; 62%) and patient survey data (n = 29; 48%). Most studies (n = 36; 60%) estimated patients’ risk to become part of some top percentage of the cost distribution (top-1–20%) within a mean time horizon of 16 months (range 12–60). Five studies (8%) predicted HNHC persistence over multiple years. Model validation was performed in 45 studies (76%). Model performance in terms of both calibration and discrimination was reported in 14 studies (23%). Overall risk of bias was rated as ‘high’ in 40 studies (67%), mostly due to a ‘high’ risk of bias in the subdomain ‘Analysis’ (n = 37; 62%). Discussion This is the first systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42020164734) of non-proprietary prognostic models predicting HNHC healthcare use. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity. Most identified models estimated a patient’s risk to incur high healthcare expenditure during the subsequent year. However, case-finding strategies for HNHC care-management programmes are best informed by a model predicting HNHC persistence. Therefore, future studies should not only focus on validating and extending existing models, but also concentrate on clinical usefulness.

A comparative study of patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision hip or knee arthroplasty

Aims The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without. Methods Data were collected from participants and medical records for the 12 months prior to revision. Patients with previous revision, metal-on-metal articulations, or hip hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Participants were retrospectively classified as ‘Planned’ or ‘Unplanned’ revision. Multilevel regression and propensity score matching were used to compare the two groups. Results Data were analyzed from 568 patients, recruited in 38 UK secondary care sites between October 2017 and October 2018 (43.5% male; mean (SD) age 71.86 years (9.93); 305 hips, 263 knees). No significant inclusion differences were identified between the two groups. For hip revision, time to revision > ten years (odds ratio (OR) 3.804, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.353 to 10.694), p = 0.011), periprosthetic fracture (OR 20.309, 95% CI (4.574 to 90.179), p < 0.001), and dislocation (OR 12.953, 95% CI (4.014 to 41.794), p < 0.001), were associated with unplanned revision. For knee, there were no associations with route to revision. Revision after ten years was more likely for those who were younger at primary surgery, regardless of route to revision. No significant differences in cost outcomes, length of surgery time, and access to a health professional in the year prior to revision were found between the two groups. When periprosthetic fractures, dislocations, and infections were excluded, healthcare use was significantly higher in the unplanned revision group. Conclusion Differences between characteristics for patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision are minimal. Although there was greater healthcare use in those having unplanned revision, it appears unlikely that routine orthopaedic review would have detected many of these issues. It may be safe to disinvest in standard follow-up provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):59–67.

GP consultation rates for sequelae after acute covid-19 in patients managed in the community or hospital in the UK: population based study

ObjectivesTo describe the rates for consulting a general practitioner (GP) for sequelae after acute covid-19 in patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 and those managed in the community, and to determine how the rates change over time for patients in the community and after vaccination for covid-19.DesignPopulation based study.Setting1392 general practices in England contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database.Participants456 002 patients with a diagnosis of covid-19 between 1 August 2020 and 14 February 2021 (44.7% men; median age 61 years), admitted to hospital within two weeks of diagnosis or managed in the community, and followed-up for a maximum of 9.2 months. A negative control group included individuals without covid-19 (n=38 511) and patients with influenza before the pandemic (n=21 803).Main outcome measuresComparison of rates for consulting a GP for new symptoms, diseases, prescriptions, and healthcare use in individuals admitted to hospital and those managed in the community, separately, before and after covid-19 infection, using Cox regression and negative binomial regression for healthcare use. The analysis was repeated for the negative control and influenza cohorts. In individuals in the community, outcomes were also described over time after a diagnosis of covid-19, and compared before and after vaccination for individuals who were symptomatic after covid-19 infection, using negative binomial regression.ResultsRelative to the negative control and influenza cohorts, patients in the community (n=437 943) had significantly higher GP consultation rates for multiple sequelae, and the most common were loss of smell or taste, or both (adjusted hazard ratio 5.28, 95% confidence interval 3.89 to 7.17, P<0.001); venous thromboembolism (3.35, 2.87 to 3.91, P<0.001); lung fibrosis (2.41, 1.37 to 4.25, P=0.002), and muscle pain (1.89, 1.63 to 2.20, P<0.001); and also for healthcare use after a diagnosis of covid-19 compared with 12 months before infection. For absolute proportions, the most common outcomes ≥4 weeks after a covid-19 diagnosis in patients in the community were joint pain (2.5%), anxiety (1.2%), and prescriptions for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (1.2%). Patients admitted to hospital (n=18 059) also had significantly higher GP consultation rates for multiple sequelae, most commonly for venous thromboembolism (16.21, 11.28 to 23.31, P<0.001), nausea (4.64, 2.24 to 9.21, P<0.001), prescriptions for paracetamol (3.68, 2.86 to 4.74, P<0.001), renal failure (3.42, 2.67 to 4.38, P<0.001), and healthcare use after a covid-19 diagnosis compared with 12 months before infection. For absolute proportions, the most common outcomes ≥4 weeks after a covid-19 diagnosis in patients admitted to hospital were venous thromboembolism (3.5%), joint pain (2.7%), and breathlessness (2.8%). In patients in the community, anxiety and depression, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, general pain, nausea, chest tightness, and tinnitus persisted throughout follow-up. GP consultation rates were reduced for all symptoms, prescriptions, and healthcare use, except for neuropathic pain, cognitive impairment, strong opiates, and paracetamol use in patients in the community after the first vaccination dose for covid-19 relative to before vaccination. GP consultation rates were also reduced for ischaemic heart disease, asthma, and gastro-oesophageal disease.ConclusionsGP consultation rates for sequelae after acute covid-19 infection differed between patients with covid-19 who were admitted to hospital and those managed in the community. For individuals in the community, rates of some sequelae decreased over time but those for others, such as anxiety and depression, persisted. Rates of some outcomes decreased after vaccination in this group.

Factors Associated with the Patient’s Decision to Avoid Healthcare during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in changes in healthcare use. This study aimed to identify factors associated with a patient’s decision to avoid and/or delay healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used data from a community-based survey in Portugal from July 2020 to August 2021, “COVID-19 Barometer: Social Opinion”, which included data regarding health services use, risk perception and confidence in health services. We framed our analysis under Andersen’s Behavioural Model of Health Services Use and utilised Poisson regression to identify healthcare avoidance associated factors. Healthcare avoidance was high (44%). Higher prevalence of healthcare avoidance was found among women; participants who reported lower confidence in the healthcare system response to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19; lost income during the pandemic; experienced negative emotions due to physical distancing measures; answered the questionnaire before middle June 2021; and perceived having worse health, the measures implemented by the Government as inadequate, the information conveyed as unclear and confusing, a higher risk of getting COVID-19, a higher risk of complications and a higher risk of getting infected in a health institution. It is crucial to reassure the population that health services are safe. Health services should plan their recovery since delays in healthcare delivery can lead to increased or worsening morbidity, yielding economic and societal costs.

Hospital, Emergency Department, and Home Health Use in Older Adults with Sensory Impairment

Hearing, vision, and dual (combined hearing and vision) sensory impairments (HI, VI, and DSI) are common in older adults and associated with adverse health outcomes. However, it is not clear how sensory impairments impact healthcare utilization in older adults. This study aims to examine hospital, emergency department (ED), and home health care use amongst adults 65 and older diagnosed with HI, VI, and DSI in an urban academic health system. This secondary analysis (N=45,000) used a limited data subset of older adult primary care patients’ EHR data from a parent study examining medical complexity, healthcare use, and social vulnerability. Using logistic regression and controlling for participant demographics and comorbidities, results show HI, VI, and DSI increase the likelihood of having an ED visit (OR 1.29, p&lt;.0001; OR 1.28, p=0.0011; OR 1.50, p=.0328, respectively) and a home health episode (hearing OR 1.41, p&lt;.0001; vision OR 1.42, p=.0002) compared to those without sensory impairment (SI). No significant difference was found in hospital use and home health use for DSI. This is the first known study to examine ED use for older adults with VI and DSI, and home health use for older adults with SI in the US. Findings suggest older adults with SI have greater utilization and dependence on healthcare services. Older adults with SI may benefit from outpatient assessments and interventions to mitigate risks of ED use. Findings also support research into the drivers of healthcare use amongst this population, financial implications, and intervention development to prevent avoidable healthcare use.