The Nuffield Trust Blog

Trends in emergency admissions in England 2004 – 2009: is greater efficiency breeding inefficiency?

(Efficiency in healthcare) Permanent link

 

Author: Ian Blunt

Published: 2010-07-05

 

Ian_BluntRates of emergency admissions to hospital have been rising for many years, and if they continue it could prompt major financial problems for the NHS, particularly heading into a period of constrained funding.

 

Although there is no shortage of opinions and ideas about what underlies this trend, relatively little is actually known about detailed patterns and causes. 

 

Here at the Nuffield Trust, we have used nationally available routine administrative data to look at the rise in emergency admissions over the past few years.

 

Our analysis showed that the number of emergency admissions in England rose by 11.8 per cent between 2004/05 to 2008/09 – resulting in around 1.35 million extra admissions. 

 

Our report goes on to explore trends in the types of patients, their conditions and nature of the hospitals admitting them.

 

Our approach allows us to test out many of the ‘usual suspects’ for the causes of the rise.  For example, it has been suggested that the rise is due to England’s ageing population.  We know that emergency admission is much more likely for older people – a person of 80 is 10 times more likely to have an emergency admission than someone in their 20s, 30s or 40s. 

 

We also know that improved health care and living standards have contributed to us living longer, meaning there are increasing numbers of older people in England. 

 

Despite this, we found that when you apply age standardised emergency admission rates from 2004/05 to the population structure in 2008/09, at most it would only increase admissions by 4.7 per cent.   That means that the ageing population of England accounts for less than half the rise in admissions, even without adjusting admission rates on the basis that older people are becoming healthier.  

 

So what is causing the majority of the rise? 

 

We don’t think there is a simple all-embracing explanation, but one thing that stands out is the increase in the number of short-stay emergency admissions, which we suspect has – in part – been caused by a lowering of the clinical threshold for emergency admissions.

 

This could be for reasons such as clinical decisions becoming more conservative, lack of faith in primary care services to monitor patients, or simply that the patient goes to A&E rather than their GP. 

 

We think this trend could be reversed by creating better out-of-hospital care and preventive care to enable expensive hospital beds to be closed and patients to be treated in the most appropriate and cost-effective setting.   You can see a more detailed set of actions in our report.

 

Without such change, future rises in emergency admissions – with all the avoidable human and financial cost they represent – appear guaranteed.


Click here to access our range of resources from the ‘Understanding trends in emergency care’ project. The report, Trends in emergency admissions in England 2004 – 2009: is greater efficiency breeding inefficiency? by Ian Blunt, Martin Bardsley and Jennifer Dixon, is available to download from www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/publications.


Please respond.



 


Very nice work, Ian!
Just one question (well, technically it's in two parts) - did clinicians agree that the threshold for emergency admissions has been lowered over the past five years? And if so, are there concrete examples of how and why this has happened, and a will to reverse it?
Cheers
Chris
Posted by: webmaster at 05/07/2010 13:54


Thanks Chris.

The clinicians we’ve spoken to broadly agree with the suggestion that their reasons for deciding to admit may have changed over recent years. A positive example of why this might be is the greater range and speed of tests they are now able to order; where previously a result may have taken three days to come through (meaning the patient was sent home to wait) it might now only take a few hours, and they believe that it is better to admit the patient until the result is known. The College of Emergency Medicine’s response to our report highlighted this possibility as a cause of increased emergency admissions. A less positive example given by other clinicians was a lack of confidence by junior doctors causing an increasing amount of precautionary admissions.

Potential solutions hotly debated – simply flooding A&E with more experienced doctors might not be practical or desirable – and often call for a re-design of the entire urgent care system. Certainly, what goes on within A&E is only part of the answer and our report calls for action from providers and commissioners to ensure that patients are able to select the most appropriate urgent care service (A&E, MIU , out-of-hours GP etc) for their need and that A&E departments are supported to direct patients to the most appropriate service by greater integration with other urgent care services (for example through better information sharing and building confidence in the alternative services). We also call for further scrutiny to the payments system to ensure that re-imbursement (and incentives) accurately match the care being provided.
Posted by: webmaster at 06/07/2010 16:24


Hi,

Very interesting work. A couple of questions for you:
Firstly, I can see from your assessment that neither PbR or the 4-hour target on their own can explain the rise in emergency admissions. But do you think that the combination of the two initiatives might explain the rise, i.e. the rise was initially caused by the 4-hour target but was later driven by PbR?
Secondly, was epilepsy one of the 'top ten' diagnostic groups, ranked by contribution to the increase?

Many thanks,

Alan Cruickshank
Posted by: webmaster at 15/07/2010 09:19


Thanks Alan.

You’re right that, while neither PbR nor the four-hour target appear to have triggered the rise in admissions, the way they work does little to discourage increases in the volume of emergency admissions. Although it is impossible to quantify its exact contribution to the overall increase, the increase due to the four-hour target for the express purpose of avoiding patients breaching the target is visible in some trusts, as shown in our report. The extent to which PbR might contribute to the overall rise in admissions is much harder gauge, and other studies (such as Farrar and others, BMJ 2009;339:b3047) have found that the evidence for PbR increasing volume is mixed. Further research in this area is very important, particular in light of recent proposals to change commissioning arrangements and reduce central control on providers.

The group of diagnoses that contains epilepsy (G40-G47 Epilepsy, migraine & other episodic disorders) contributed 2.2% of the rise in emergency admissions between 2004 and 2009. In 2004/05, these diagnoses contributed 1.4% of all emergency admissions.
Posted by: webmaster at 16/07/2010 12:54


Leave a comment
Name *
Email: *
Homepage
Comment

59 New Cavendish Street
London W1G 7LP
Tel: 020 7631 8450