Impact of Disease Prevalence Adjustment on Hospitalization Rates For Chronic Ambulatory Care-Sensitive Conditions in Germany

Overview

Journal Health Serv Res

Specialty Health Services

Date 2017 Mar 24

PMID 28332190

Citations 10

Authors

Johannes Pollmanns

Patrick S Romano

Maria Weyermann

Max Geraedts

Saskia E Drosler

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To explore effects of disease prevalence adjustment on ambulatory care-sensitive hospitalization (ACSH) rates used for quality comparisons.

Data Sources/study Setting: County-level hospital administrative data on adults discharged from German hospitals in 2011 and prevalence estimates based on administrative ambulatory diagnosis data were used.

Study Design: A retrospective cross-sectional study using in- and outpatient secondary data was performed.

Data Collection: Hospitalization data for hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma were obtained from the German Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) database. Prevalence estimates were obtained from the German Central Research Institute of Ambulatory Health Care.

Principal Findings: Crude hospitalization rates varied substantially across counties (coefficients of variation [CV] 28-37 percent across conditions); this variation was reduced by prevalence adjustment (CV 21-28 percent). Prevalence explained 40-50 percent of the observed variation (r = 0.65-0.70) in ACSH rates for all conditions except asthma (r = 0.07). Between 30 percent and 38 percent of areas moved into or outside condition-specific control limits with prevalence adjustment.

Conclusions: Unadjusted ACSH rates should be used with caution for high-stakes public reporting as differences in prevalence may have a marked impact. Prevalence adjustment should be considered in models analyzing ACSH.

Citing Articles

Time trends in incidence and mortality of respiratory diseases of high public health relevance in Germany.

Steppuhn H, Buda S, Wienecke A, Kraywinkel K, Tolksdorf K, Haberland J J Health Monit. 2023; 2(3):3-33.

PMID: 37168954 PMC: 10165912. DOI: 10.17886/RKI-GBE-2017-061.

12-month prevalence of asthma among adults in Germany.

Steppuhn H, Kuhnert R, Scheidt-Nave C J Health Monit. 2023; 2(3):34-42.

PMID: 37168951 PMC: 10165913. DOI: 10.17886/RKI-GBE-2017-064.

12-month prevalence of known chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Germany.

Steppuhn H, Kuhnert R, Scheidt-Nave C J Health Monit. 2023; 2(3):43-50.

PMID: 37168950 PMC: 10165902. DOI: 10.17886/RKI-GBE-2017-065.

Development of indicators to assess quality and patient pathways in interdisciplinary care for patients with 14 ambulatory-care-sensitive conditions in Germany.

Schuttig W, Flemming R, Mosler C, Leve V, Reddemann O, Schultz A BMC Health Serv Res. 2022; 22(1):1015.

PMID: 35945585 PMC: 9364554. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-08327-1.

Selecting and defining indicators for diabetes surveillance in Germany.

Gabrys L, Heidemann C, Schmidt C, Baumert J, Teti A, Du Y J Health Monit. 2022; 3(Suppl 3):3-21.

PMID: 35586543 PMC: 8852787. DOI: 10.17886/RKI-GBE-2018-063.

References

Nedel F, Facchini L, Bastos J, Martin-Mateo M . Conceptual and methodological aspects in the study of hospitalizations for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Cien Saude Colet. 2011; 16 Suppl 1:1145-54. DOI: 10.1590/s1413-81232011000700046. View

Busby J, Purdy S, Hollingworth W . A systematic review of the magnitude and cause of geographic variation in unplanned hospital admission rates and length of stay for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015; 15:324. PMC: 4535775. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-015-0964-3. View

Naumann C, Augustin U, Sundmacher L . [Ambulatory care-sensitive conditions in Germany: a small area analysis (2006-2009)]. Gesundheitswesen. 2014; 77(4):e91-e105. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1372576. View

Weissman J, Gatsonis C, Epstein A . Rates of avoidable hospitalization by insurance status in Massachusetts and Maryland. JAMA. 1992; 268(17):2388-94. View

Thygesen L, Christiansen T, Garcia-Armesto S, Angulo-Pueyo E, Martinez-Lizaga N, Bernal-Delgado E . Potentially avoidable hospitalizations in five European countries in 2009 and time trends from 2002 to 2009 based on administrative data. Eur J Public Health. 2015; 25 Suppl 1:35-43. DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/cku227. View

Ansari Z, Barbetti T, Carson N, Auckland M, Cicuttini F . The Victorian ambulatory care sensitive conditions study: rural and urban perspectives. Soz Praventivmed. 2003; 48(1):33-43. DOI: 10.1007/s000380300004. View

Laditka J, Laditka S . Insurance status and access to primary health care:disparate outcomes for potentially preventable hospitalization. J Health Soc Policy. 2005; 19(2):81-100. DOI: 10.1300/J045v19n02_04. View

Corallo A, Croxford R, Goodman D, Bryan E, Srivastava D, Stukel T . A systematic review of medical practice variation in OECD countries. Health Policy. 2013; 114(1):5-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.08.002. View

Dover D, Schopflocher D . Using funnel plots in public health surveillance. Popul Health Metr. 2011; 9(1):58. PMC: 3254595. DOI: 10.1186/1478-7954-9-58. View

10.

Mohammed M, Cheng K, Rouse A, Marshall T . Bristol, Shipman, and clinical governance: Shewhart's forgotten lessons. Lancet. 2001; 357(9254):463-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04019-8. View

11.

Saust L, Monrad R, Hansen M, Arpi M, Bjerrum L . Quality assessment of diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of infectious diseases in primary care: a systematic review of quality indicators. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2016; 34(3):258-66. PMC: 5036015. DOI: 10.1080/02813432.2016.1207143. View

12.

Rushforth B, Stokes T, Andrews E, Willis T, McEachan R, Faulkner S . Developing 'high impact' guideline-based quality indicators for UK primary care: a multi-stage consensus process. BMC Fam Pract. 2015; 16:156. PMC: 4624600. DOI: 10.1186/s12875-015-0350-6. View

13.

Rosano A, Loha C, Falvo R, Zee J, Ricciardi W, Guasticchi G . The relationship between avoidable hospitalization and accessibility to primary care: a systematic review. Eur J Public Health. 2012; 23(3):356-60. DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/cks053. View

14.

Giuffrida A, Gravelle H, Roland M . Measuring quality of care with routine data: avoiding confusion between performance indicators and health outcomes. BMJ. 1999; 319(7202):94-8. PMC: 28159. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.319.7202.94. View

15.

van Loenen T, Faber M, Westert G, van den Berg M . The impact of primary care organization on avoidable hospital admissions for diabetes in 23 countries. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2016; 34(1):5-12. PMC: 4911022. DOI: 10.3109/02813432.2015.1132883. View

16.

Laditka J, Laditka S, Probst J . Health care access in rural areas: evidence that hospitalization for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions in the United States may increase with the level of rurality. Health Place. 2009; 15(3):731-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.12.007. View

17.

Schreiber S, Zielinski T . The meaning of ambulatory care sensitive admissions: urban and rural perspectives. J Rural Health. 1999; 13(4):276-84. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.1997.tb00970.x. View

18.

Gorina Y, Kramarow E . Identifying chronic conditions in Medicare claims data: evaluating the Chronic Condition Data Warehouse algorithm. Health Serv Res. 2011; 46(5):1610-27. PMC: 3207195. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01277.x. View

19.

Laditka J, Laditka S . Race, ethnicity and hospitalization for six chronic ambulatory care sensitive conditions in the USA. Ethn Health. 2006; 11(3):247-63. DOI: 10.1080/13557850600565640. View

20.

Magan P, Alberquilla A, Otero A, Ribera J . Hospitalizations for ambulatory care sensitive conditions and quality of primary care: their relation with socioeconomic and health care variables in the Madrid regional health service (Spain). Med Care. 2010; 49(1):17-23. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181ef9d13. View