Title |
An analysis of the economic and patient outcome impact of an integrated COPD service in east London
|
---|---|
Published in |
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, June 2017
|
DOI | 10.2147/copd.s127843 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Anna Garner, Matthew Hodson, Georgios Ketsetzis, Laurence Pulle, Janelle Yorke, Angshu Bhowmik |
Abstract |
Exacerbations of COPD carry a huge burden of morbidity and a significant economic impact. It has been shown that home care may be useful for exacerbations of COPD. This article presents a review of an integrated COPD service in east London. Hospital Episode Statistics, Public Health Mortality Files and clinical data were used to analyze differences in health care usage and COPD patient outcomes, including COPD assessment test (CAT) scores for a subsample, before and after the introduction of the integrated service. There was a significant (30%) reduction in the number of hospital bed days for COPD patients (P<0.05), alongside a significant increase in patients with only a short stay (0-1 days) in hospital (P<0.0001). There was a significant increase in the number of patients dying outside of hospital (a proxy for quality of end-of-life care) following introduction of the service (P=0.00015). Patients also reported a clinically significant improvement in CAT scores. A locally developed economic model shows that the economic benefits of the service (via impact on place of death and reduction in length of hospital stay) were almost equal to the cost of the service. The increase in proportion of short-stay admissions and the reduction in bed days suggest an impact of the service on early supported discharge and that this along with an improvement in patient clinical outcomes and in quality of end-of-life care shows that an exemplar integrated COPD service can provide benefits that equate to a nearly cost-neutral service. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 5 | 42% |
Unknown | 7 | 58% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 5 | 42% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 33% |
Scientists | 2 | 17% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 19% |
Student > Master | 5 | 16% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 16% |
Researcher | 3 | 9% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
Other | 5 | 16% |
Unknown | 5 | 16% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 38% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 16% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 9% |
Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
Psychology | 2 | 6% |
Other | 3 | 9% |
Unknown | 5 | 16% |