Key result
SwissDRG financing shows no impact on AMI mortality or treatment adherence despite shorter hospital stays.
Why the study?
The impact of the 2012 revision of the Swiss Federal Health Insurance Act and hospital financing reform on the quality of AMI hospital treatment was unknown.
Does the implementation of a new DRG-based hospital financing system impact the quality of treatment and clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction?
Observational (n=5,035)
Yes
Does the implementation of a new DRG-based hospital financing system impact the quality of treatment and clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction?
Odds Ratio: 1.061 (95% CI 0.784–1.435)
The transition to a DRG-based hospital financing system in Switzerland maintained overall AMI treatment quality and reduced length of stay, but may have negatively impacted mortality in specific vulnerable patient subgroups.
SwissDRGs were associated with shorter AMI stays without changing mortality or treatment adherence; leaves open subgroup effects for prospective confirmation.
Objective: Following a revision of the Swiss Federal Health Insurance Act, the regional hospital planning structure was modified and the hospital financing organized at a national level with the use of diagnosis related groups (SwissDRGs). The aim of this observational study was to determine in an independent way the initial impact of these changes on the quality of hospital treatment, with patients hospitalized for Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) being the chosen study group.Methods: We used prospective data from a Swiss clinical registry for AMI. The quality was measured based on the adherence to 10 evidence-based performance indicators for AMI treatment, and on the evaluation of in-hospital outcomes (mortality, complications, length of hospital stay [LOS]) globally and for seven pre-defined vulnerable subgroups. The study compared patient-based data before (2011) and after (2012) the implementation of the reform.Results: The study included 33 matched hospitals, and compared the AMI treatment of 2,491 patients in 2011 (before) and 2,544 in 2012 (after the hospital reform). No significant changes in the evidence-based performance indicators were observed, but an on average one day reduction in the LOS and worse outcomes in one of the pre-defined group of patients were found. The issue of how the clinical team achieved these results was not directly explored due to the underlying registry’s unalterable structure.Conclusions: One year after the implementation of a new hospital financing system in Switzerland, the quality of treatment delivered to patients hospitalized for AMI was maintained overall. The worse in-hospital mortality in one pre-defined vulnerable subgroup could reflect the emergence of difficulties for clinical teams to cope with patients demanding extra care and time. Further investigation is warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dorey et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Acute Myocardial Infarction (n=5,035). Implementation of new hospital financing system (SwissDRGs) vs. Before implementation (2011) was evaluated on Adjusted in-hospital mortality (OR 1.061, 95% CI 0.784-1.435). The implementation of a new hospital financing system based on SwissDRGs did not significantly change adjusted in-hospital mortality (OR 1.061) or adherence to evidence-based treatments for acute myocardial infarction, though median length of stay decreased by one day.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: