Search

Abstract Background Orthogeriatric co-management (OGCM) addresses the special needs of geriatric fracture patients. Most of the research on OGCM focused on hip fractures while results concerning other severe fractures are rare. We conducted a health-economic evaluation of OGCM for pelvic and vertebral fractures. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, we used German health and long-term care insurance claims data and included cases of geriatric patients aged 80 years or older treated in an OGCM (OGCM group) or a non-OGCM hospital (non-OGCM group) due to pelvic or vertebral fractures in 2014–2018. We analyzed life years gained, fracture-free life years gained, healthcare costs, and cost-effectiveness within 1 year. We applied entropy balancing, weighted gamma and two-part models. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results We included 21,036 cases with pelvic (71.2% in the OGCM, 28.8% in the non-OGCM group) and 33,827 with vertebral fractures (72.8% OGCM, 27.2% non-OGCM group). 4.5–5.9% of the pelvic and 31.8–33.8% of the vertebral fracture cases were treated surgically. Total healthcare costs were significantly higher after treatment in OGCM compared to non-OGCM hospitals for both fracture cohorts. For both fracture cohorts, a 95% probability of cost-effectiveness was not exceeded for a willingness-to-pay of up to €150,000 per life year or €150,000 per fracture-free life year gained. Conclusion We did not obtain distinct benefits of treatment in an OGCM hospital. Assigning cases to OGCM or non-OGCM group on hospital level might have underestimated the effect of OGCM as not all patients in the OGCM group have received OGCM.

Abstract Orthogeriatric co-management (OGCM) describes a collaboration of orthopedic surgeons and geriatricians for the treatment of fragility fractures in geriatric patients. While its cost-effectiveness for hip fractures has been widely investigated, research focusing on fractures of the upper extremities is lacking. Thus, we conducted a health economic evaluation of treatment in OGCM hospitals for forearm and humerus fractures. In a retrospective cohort study with nationwide health insurance claims data, we selected the first inpatient stay due to a forearm or humerus fracture in 2014–2018 either treated in hospitals that were able to offer OGCM (OGCM group) or not (non-OGCM group) and applied a 1-year follow-up. We included 31,557 cases with forearm (63.1% OGCM group) and 39,093 cases with humerus fractures (63.9% OGCM group) and balanced relevant covariates using entropy balancing. We investigated costs in different health sectors, length of stay, and cost-effectiveness regarding total cost per life year or fracture-free life year gained. In both fracture cohorts, initial hospital stay, inpatient stay, and total costs were higher in OGCM than in non-OGCM hospitals. For neither cohort nor effectiveness outcome, the probability that treatment in OGCM hospitals was cost-effective exceeded 95% for a willingness-to-pay of up to €150,000. We did not find distinct benefits of treatment in OGCM hospitals. Assigning cases to study groups on hospital-level and using life years and fracture-free life years, which might not adequately reflect the manifold ways these fractures affect the patients’ health, as effectiveness outcomes, might have underestimated the effectiveness of treatment in OGCM hospitals.

Abstract Background Effective care coordination may increase clinical efficiency, but its measurement remains difficult. The established metric “care density” (CD) measures care coordination based on patient-sharing among physicians, but it may be too rigid to generalize across disorders and countries. Therefore, we propose an extension called fragmented care density (FCD), which allows varying weights for connections between different types of providers. We compare both metrics in their ability to predict hospitalizations due to schizophrenia. Methods We conducted a longitudinal cohort study based on German claims data from 2014 through 2017 to predict quarterly hospital admissions. 21,016 patients with schizophrenia from the federal state Baden-Württemberg were included. CD and FCD were calculated based on patient-sharing networks. The weights of FCD were optimized to predict hospital admissions during the first year of a 24-month follow-up. Subsequently, we employed likelihood ratio tests to assess whether adding either CD or FCD improved a baseline model with control variables for the second follow-up year. Results The inclusion of FCD significantly improved the baseline model, Χ2(1) = 53.30, p

Introduction Older people in need of home care are at risk of declining oral health as their visits to dentists are becoming less frequent due to restricted mobility. There is increasing evidence that poor oral health and systemic diseases are closely associated, for example, in cardiological, metabolic or neurodegenerative conditions. Thus, Interaction of Systemic Morbidity and Oral Health in Ambulatory Patients in Need of Home Care (InSEMaP) is investigating the need, provision and utilisation of oral healthcare, systemic morbidity and clinical status of the oral cavity in older people.Methods and analysis InSEMaP consists of four subprojects (SP), all involving the target population of older people in need of home care. In SP1 part a, a sample is surveyed using a self-report questionnaire. In SP1 part b, stakeholders (general practitioners, dentists, medical assistants, family and professional caregivers) are interviewed regarding barriers and facilitators using focus groups and personal interviews. In SP2, a retrospective cohort study, health insurance claims data are examined to investigate the utilisation of oral healthcare, its association with systemic morbidity and healthcare costs. In SP3, a clinical observational study will assess the oral health of participants by a dentist’s visit at home. SP4 synthesises the results of SP1, SP2 and SP3 to develop integrated clinical pathways, identifying strategies to uphold oral healthcare in older people. In assessing and evaluating the process of oral healthcare, and its associated systemic morbidity, InSEMaP aims to improve general healthcare across the sector boundary of dental and general practitioner care.Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the Hamburg Medical Chamber (approval number: 2021-100715-BO-ff). The results of this study will be disseminated through conference presentations and publications in peer-reviewed journals. An expert advisory board to support the InSEMaP study group will be established.Trial registration number German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00027020.