Search

Abstract Background The healthcare systems in the western world have in recent years faced major challenges caused by demographic changes and altered patterns of diseases as well as political decisions influencing the organisation of healthcare provisions. General practitioners are encouraged to delegate more clinical tasks to their staff in order to respond to the changing circumstances. Nevertheless, the degree of task delegation varies substantially between general practices, and how these different degrees affect the quality of care for the patients is currently not known. Using chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as our case scenario, the aim of the study was to investigate associations between degrees of task delegation in general practice and spirometry testing as a measure of quality of care. Methods We carried out a cross-sectional study comprising all general practices in Denmark and patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. General practitioners (GPs) were invited to participate in a survey investigating degrees of task delegation in their clinics. Data were linked to national registers on spirometry testing among patients with COPD. We investigated associations using multilevel mixed-effects logit models and adjusted for practice and patient characteristics. Results GPs from 895 practices with staff managing COPD-related tasks responded, and 61,223 COPD patients were linked to these practices. Hereof, 24,685 (40.3%) had a spirometry performed within a year. Patients had a statistically significant higher odds ratio (OR) of having an annual spirometry performed in practices with medium or maximal degrees of task delegation compared to practices with a minimal degree (OR = 1.27 and OR = 1.33, respectively). Conclusion Delegating more complex tasks to practice staff implies that COPD-patients are more likely to be treated according to evidence-based recommendations on spirometry testing.

Abstract Background The recent surge of asylum seekers in the European Union (EU) is raising questions about the EU’s ability to integrate newcomers into the economy and into society; particularly those who need specialized services for the treatment of severe trauma. This study investigated whether rehabilitating traumatised refugees represents ‘value-for-money’ (VfM) in terms of intervention cost per health gain and in a long-term and societal perspective. Methods The economic evaluation comprised a cost-utility analysis (CUA) and a partial cost-benefit analysis (CBA). The CUA incorporated data on Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) for 45 patients who were treated at the Rehabilitation and Research Centre for Torture Victims, Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2001–2004 and followed for up to 2 years, to determine the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). For the CBA, data was collected for 44 patients who completed treatment between 2001 and 2004 and 44 matched controls on the waiting list, for the patients’ primary health care utilisation, and personal and family labour income from 2001 to 2014. This was analysed to evaluate the Net Social Benefit (NSB) of the programme. Results The average cost of treatment was found to be about 32,000 USD per patient (2016 prices) with an average gain in QALY of 0.82. The treatment was cost effective according to the ICER threshold suggested by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (UK). At the individual level, the NSB remained negative throughout the study period. However, at the family income level the intervention proved to have been beneficial after 3 years. Conclusion The implication of the study is, that providing rehabilitation to severely traumatised refugee families can be an economically viable strategy, considering the economic effects observed at the family level.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported a correction in the name of one of the authors.