Search

Abstract Background Few studies have quantified multimorbidity and frailty trends within hospital settings, with even fewer reporting how much is attributable to the ageing population and individual patient factors. Studies to date have tended to focus on people over 65, rarely capturing older people or stratifying findings by planned and unplanned activity. As the UK’s national health service (NHS) backlog worsens, and debates about productivity dominate, it is essential to understand these hospital trends so health services can meet them. Methods Hospital Episode Statistics inpatient admission records were extracted for adults between 2006 and 2021. Multimorbidity and frailty was measured using Elixhauser Comorbidity Index and Soong Frailty Scores. Yearly proportions of people with Elixhauser conditions (0, 1, 2, 3 +) or frailty syndromes (0, 1, 2 +) were reported, and the prevalence between 2006 and 2021 compared. Logistic regression models measured how much patient factors impacted the likelihood of having three or more Elixhauser conditions or two or more frailty syndromes. Results were stratified by age groups (18–44, 45–64 and 65 +) and admission type (emergency or elective). Results The study included 107 million adult inpatient hospital episodes. Overall, the proportion of admissions with one or more Elixhauser conditions rose for acute and elective admissions, with the trend becoming more prominent as age increased. This was most striking among acute admissions for people aged 65 and over, who saw a 35.2% absolute increase in the proportion of admissions who had three or more Elixhauser conditions. This means there were 915,221 extra hospital episodes in the last 12 months of the study, by people who had at least three Elixhauser conditions compared with 15 years ago. The findings were similar for people who had one or more frailty syndromes. Overall, year, age and socioeconomic deprivation were found to be strongly and positively associated with having three or more Elixhauser conditions or two or more frailty syndromes, with socioeconomic deprivation showing a strong dose–response relationship. Conclusions Overall, the proportion of hospital admissions with multiple conditions or frailty syndromes has risen over the last 15 years. This matches smaller-scale and anecdotal reports from hospitals and can inform how hospitals are reimbursed.

Abstract Aims Many risk prediction models have been proposed for heart failure (HF), but few studies have used only information available to general practitioners (GPs) in primary care electronic health records (EHRs). We describe the predictors and performance of models built from GP‐based EHRs in two cohorts of patients 10 years apart. Methods and results Linked primary and secondary care data for incident HF cases in England were extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink for 2001–02 and 2011–12. Time‐to‐event models for all‐cause mortality were developed using a long list of potential baseline predictors. Discrimination and calibration were calculated. A total of 5966 patients in 156 general practices were diagnosed in 2001–02, and 12 827 patients in 331 practices were diagnosed in 2011–12. The 5‐year survival rate was 40.0% in 2001–02 and 40.2% in 2011–12, though the latter population were older, frailer, and more comorbid; for 2001–02, the 10‐year survival was 20.8% and 15‐year survival 11.1%. Consistent predictors included age, male sex, systolic blood pressure, body mass index, GP domiciliary visits before diagnosis, and some comorbidities. Model performance for both time windows was modest (c = 0.70), but calibration was generally excellent in both time periods. Conclusions Information routinely available to UK GPs at the time of diagnosis of HF gives only modest predictive accuracy of all‐cause mortality, making it hard to decide on the type, place, and urgency of follow‐up. More consistent recording of data relevant to HF (such as echocardiography and natriuretic peptide results) in GP EHRs is needed to support accurate prediction of healthcare needs in individuals with HF.

Abstract Aims Guidelines recommend the use of an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) and/or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device based on the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), typically with selected patients and short follow‐up. Methods and results We describe the 5 year survival rate and use of hospital services following ICD and CRT implantation in England from April 2011 to March 2013 using the national hospital administrative database covering emergency department visits, inpatient admissions, and clinic appointments, linked to the national death register. Five‐year survival was 64% after ICD implantation and 58% after CRT implantation, with median survival times of 6.8 and 6.2 years, respectively. Hospital use was high in both device groups, for the 5 years prior and after implantation, peaking around the implantation date. Most hospital activity was not primarily related to heart failure. Healthcare costs were dominated by admissions, but emergency department and clinic activity were both high. Only the CRT group saw total per‐patient costs fall after the index month (implantation), driven by a slight fall in the heart failure admission rate. Patients were typically older than in the trials, but with similar co‐morbidity except for substantially more atrial fibrillation and less dementia. Survival and device complications were similar to the RCTs. Conclusions Clinical and cost‐effectiveness assessments of ICD and CRT implantation are supported by real‐world data, although the prevalence of atrial fibrillation remains substantially higher than in the RCTs.

Objectives To estimate the long-term survival of two cohorts of people diagnosed with heart failure 10 years apart and to assess differences in patient characteristics, clinical guideline compliance and survival by diagnosis setting.Methods Data for patients aged 18 and over with a new diagnosis of heart failure in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in 2001–2002 (5966 patients in 156 practices) and 2011–2012 (12 827 patients in 331 practices). Survival rates since diagnosis were described using Kaplan-Meier plots. Compliance with national guidelines was summarised.Results 2011/2012 patients were older than those diagnosed a decade before, with lower blood pressure and cholesterol but more comorbidity and healthcare contacts. For those diagnosed in 2001/2002, the 5-year survival was 40.0% (40.2% in the 2011/2012 cohort), 10-year survival was 20.8%, and 15-year survival 11.1%. Improvement in survival between the two time periods was seen only in those diagnosed in primary care (5-year survival 46.0% vs 57.4%, compared with 33.9% and 32.6% for hospital-diagnosed patients).Beta-blocker use rose from 24.3% to 39.1%; renin–angiotensin system blockers rose from 31.8% to 54.3% (both p

Objective Implant rates of mechanical circulatory supports such as left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) have steadily increased in the last decade. We assessed the utility of administrative data to provide information on hospital use and outcomes.Methods Using 2 years of national hospital administrative data for England linked to the death register, we identified all patients with an LVAD and extracted hospital activity for 5 years before and after the LVAD implantation date.Results In the two index years April 2011 to March 2013, 157 patients had an LVAD implanted. The mean age was 50.9 (SD 15.4), and 78.3% were men. After 5 years, 92 (58.6%) had died; the recorded cause of death was noncardiovascular in 67.4%. 42 (26.8%) patients received a heart±lung transplantation. Compared with the 12 months before implantation, the 12 months after but not including the month of implantation saw falls in total inpatient and day case admissions, a fall in admissions for heart failure (HF), a rise in non-HF admissions, a fall in emergency department visits not ending in admission and a rise in outpatient appointments (all per patient at risk). Postimplantation complications were common in the subsequent 5 years: 26.1% had a stroke, 23.6% had a device infection and 13.4% had a new LVAD implanted.Conclusions Despite patients’ young age, their mortality is high and their hospital use and complications are common in the 5 years following LVAD implantation. Administrative data provide important information on resource use in this patient group.

Little is known about how COVID-19 impacted acute surgical activity for children and young people (CYP) across England. Appendicitis and testicular torsion are common surgical conditions where treatment delays can lead to avoidable complications. We undertook a retrospective national cohort study. Primary aim: To describe monthly acute surgical activity in CYP during the COVID-19 pandemic. Secondary aim: To investigate evidence of delayed diagnosis and adverse outcomes, describing variations by age and socioeconomic deprivation. Acute hospital admissions with appendicitis or testicular pain for those under 18 were extracted using Hospital Episode Statistics. Interrupted time series modelling, Mann–Whitney and Pearson's Chi-Squared tests compared the first 14 pandemic months with the previous five years. Results were stratified by age (0–4s, 5–9s and 10–17s) and appendicitis type (all, simple and complex). Admissions for appendicitis and testicular torsion fell significantly early in the COVID-19 pandemic. The proportion of children with complex appendicitis also increased during this time. Orchidectomy rates rose in April 2020 for the 0–4s (+15.6% (95% CI 7.9–23.3)) and 10–17s (+11.5% (4.9–18.2)), but when the pre-pandemic period was compared with the pandemic period as a whole, there were no overall statistically significant differences in orchidectomy rates between the study periods. Overall, there was a statistically significant rise in the orchidopexy rate during the pandemic period for the 10–17s when compared with the pre-pandemic period (Pre-pandemic: 17.0% vs Pandemic: 20.9%, p < 0.0001). A consistent reduction in activity, with short-lived periods of delayed presentations during COVID-19 pandemic peaks, occurred without persisting overall increased complication rates. These results provide useful national context for smaller sized studies that reported complications due to delays in surgery. Future research could examine how reduced activity impacted other healthcare settings and treatment pathways. II. • What is currently known about this topic? Treatment delays for acute appendicitis or testicular torsion can lead to avoidable complications. COVID-19 studies have tended to focus on single sites, the early pandemic, or adult populations. • What new information is contained in this article? There was a consistent reduction in hospital activity, with short-lived periods of delayed presentations during pandemic peaks, without persisting into overall increased complication rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID-19 caused widespread disruptions to health services worldwide, including reductions in elective surgery. Tooth extractions are among the most common reasons for elective surgery among children and young people (CYP). It is unclear how COVID-19 affected elective dental surgeries in hospitals over multiple pandemic waves at a national level., Methods: Elective dental tooth extraction admissions were selected using Hospital Episode Statistics. Admission trends for the first 14 pandemic months were compared with the previous five years and results were stratified by age (under-11s, 11-16s, 17-24s)., Results: The most socioeconomically deprived CYP comprised the largest proportion of elective dental tooth extraction admissions. In April 2020, admissions dropped by >95%. In absolute terms, the biggest reduction was in April (11-16s: -1339 admissions, 95% CI -1411 to -1267; 17-24s: -1600, -1678 to -1521) and May 2020 (under-11s: -2857, -2962 to -2752). Admissions differed by socioeconomic deprivation for the under-11s (P < 0.0001), driven by fewer admissions than expected by the most deprived and more by the most affluent during the pandemic., Conclusion: Elective tooth extractions dropped most in April 2020, remaining below pre-pandemic levels throughout the study. Despite being the most likely to be admitted, the most deprived under-11s had the largest reductions in admissions relative to other groups., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health.)

Aims: Many risk prediction models have been proposed for heart failure (HF), but few studies have used only information available to general practitioners (GPs) in primary care electronic health records (EHRs). We describe the predictors and performance of models built from GP-based EHRs in two cohorts of patients 10 years apart., Methods and Results: Linked primary and secondary care data for incident HF cases in England were extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink for 2001-02 and 2011-12. Time-to-event models for all-cause mortality were developed using a long list of potential baseline predictors. Discrimination and calibration were calculated. A total of 5966 patients in 156 general practices were diagnosed in 2001-02, and 12 827 patients in 331 practices were diagnosed in 2011-12. The 5-year survival rate was 40.0% in 2001-02 and 40.2% in 2011-12, though the latter population were older, frailer, and more comorbid; for 2001-02, the 10-year survival was 20.8% and 15-year survival 11.1%. Consistent predictors included age, male sex, systolic blood pressure, body mass index, GP domiciliary visits before diagnosis, and some comorbidities. Model performance for both time windows was modest (c = 0.70), but calibration was generally excellent in both time periods., Conclusions: Information routinely available to UK GPs at the time of diagnosis of HF gives only modest predictive accuracy of all-cause mortality, making it hard to decide on the type, place, and urgency of follow-up. More consistent recording of data relevant to HF (such as echocardiography and natriuretic peptide results) in GP EHRs is needed to support accurate prediction of healthcare needs in individuals with HF., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: A report suggesting large between-hospital variations in mortality after admission for COVID-19 in England attracted much media attention but used crude rates. We aimed to quantify these variations between hospitals and over time during England's first wave (March to July 2020) and assess available patient-level and hospital-level predictors to explain those variations., Methods: We used administrative data for England, augmented by hospital-level information. Admissions were extracted with COVID-19 codes. In-hospital death was the primary outcome. Risk-adjusted mortality ratios (standardised mortality ratios) and interhospital variation were calculated using multilevel logistic regression. Early-wave (March to April) and late-wave (May to July) periods were compared., Results: 74 781 admissions had a primary diagnosis of COVID-19, with 21 984 in-hospital deaths (29.4%); the 30-day total mortality rate was 28.8%. The crude in-hospital death rate fell in all ages and overall from 32.9% in March to 13.4% in July. Patient-level predictors included age, male gender, non-white ethnic group (early period only) and several comorbidities (obesity early period only). The only significant hospital-level predictor was daily COVID-19 admissions in the late period; we did not find a relation with staff absences for COVID-19, mechanical ventilation bed occupancies, total bed occupancies or bed occupancies for COVID-19 admissions in either period. Just 4 (3%) and 2 (2%) hospitals were high, and 5 (4%) and 0 hospitals were low funnel plot mortality outliers at 3 SD for early and late periods, respectively, after risk adjustment. We found no strong correlation between early and late hospital-level mortality (r=0.17, p=0.06)., Conclusions: There was modest variation in mortality following admission for COVID-19 between English hospitals after adjustment for risk and random variation, in marked contrast to early media reports. Early-period mortality did not predict late-period mortality., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AB, PF and PPA had financial support from Dr Foster for the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To estimate the long-term survival of two cohorts of people diagnosed with heart failure 10 years apart and to assess differences in patient characteristics, clinical guideline compliance and survival by diagnosis setting., Methods: Data for patients aged 18 and over with a new diagnosis of heart failure in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in 2001-2002 (5966 patients in 156 practices) and 2011-2012 (12 827 patients in 331 practices). Survival rates since diagnosis were described using Kaplan-Meier plots. Compliance with national guidelines was summarised., Results: 2011/2012 patients were older than those diagnosed a decade before, with lower blood pressure and cholesterol but more comorbidity and healthcare contacts. For those diagnosed in 2001/2002, the 5-year survival was 40.0% (40.2% in the 2011/2012 cohort), 10-year survival was 20.8%, and 15-year survival 11.1%. Improvement in survival between the two time periods was seen only in those diagnosed in primary care (5-year survival 46.0% vs 57.4%, compared with 33.9% and 32.6% for hospital-diagnosed patients).Beta-blocker use rose from 24.3% to 39.1%; renin-angiotensin system blockers rose from 31.8% to 54.3% (both p<0.001). There was little change for loop diuretics and none for thiazide diuretics. For the 9963 patients with symptoms recorded by their general practitioner before diagnosis, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) testing was low, but echocardiogram use rose from 8.3% to 19.3%, and specialist referral rose from 7.2% to 24.6% (all p<0.001)., Conclusions: The 10 years saw some long-term survival gains but only modest improvement in national clinical guideline compliance, from a low baseline, despite the introduction of national initiatives., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AB and PF had financial support from Dr Foster for the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Aims: Guidelines recommend the use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and/or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device based on the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), typically with selected patients and short follow-up., Methods and Results: We describe the 5 year survival rate and use of hospital services following ICD and CRT implantation in England from April 2011 to March 2013 using the national hospital administrative database covering emergency department visits, inpatient admissions, and clinic appointments, linked to the national death register. Five-year survival was 64% after ICD implantation and 58% after CRT implantation, with median survival times of 6.8 and 6.2 years, respectively. Hospital use was high in both device groups, for the 5 years prior and after implantation, peaking around the implantation date. Most hospital activity was not primarily related to heart failure. Healthcare costs were dominated by admissions, but emergency department and clinic activity were both high. Only the CRT group saw total per-patient costs fall after the index month (implantation), driven by a slight fall in the heart failure admission rate. Patients were typically older than in the trials, but with similar co-morbidity except for substantially more atrial fibrillation and less dementia. Survival and device complications were similar to the RCTs., Conclusions: Clinical and cost-effectiveness assessments of ICD and CRT implantation are supported by real-world data, although the prevalence of atrial fibrillation remains substantially higher than in the RCTs., (© 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Objective: Implant rates of mechanical circulatory supports such as left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) have steadily increased in the last decade. We assessed the utility of administrative data to provide information on hospital use and outcomes., Methods: Using 2 years of national hospital administrative data for England linked to the death register, we identified all patients with an LVAD and extracted hospital activity for 5 years before and after the LVAD implantation date., Results: In the two index years April 2011 to March 2013, 157 patients had an LVAD implanted. The mean age was 50.9 (SD 15.4), and 78.3% were men. After 5 years, 92 (58.6%) had died; the recorded cause of death was noncardiovascular in 67.4%. 42 (26.8%) patients received a heart±lung transplantation. Compared with the 12 months before implantation, the 12 months after but not including the month of implantation saw falls in total inpatient and day case admissions, a fall in admissions for heart failure (HF), a rise in non-HF admissions, a fall in emergency department visits not ending in admission and a rise in outpatient appointments (all per patient at risk). Postimplantation complications were common in the subsequent 5 years: 26.1% had a stroke, 23.6% had a device infection and 13.4% had a new LVAD implanted., Conclusions: Despite patients' young age, their mortality is high and their hospital use and complications are common in the 5 years following LVAD implantation. Administrative data provide important information on resource use in this patient group., Competing Interests: Competing interests: This work was supported in part by a Medtronic grant to AB and MRC. The Dr Foster Unit is an academic unit in the Department of Primary Care and Public Health, within the School of Public Health, Imperial College London. The unit receives research funding from Dr Foster Intelligence, an independent health service research organisation (a wholly owned subsidiary of Telstra). The Dr Foster Unit at Imperial is affiliated with the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre. The NIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Centre is a partnership between the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College London. The Department of Primary Care & Public Health at Imperial College London is grateful for support from the NW London NIHR Applied Research Collaboration and the Imperial NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. MRC has received consultancy advice, research funds, and speaker’s honoraria from Medtronic, Abbott and Boston Scientific., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)