ORCID Profile
0000-0002-6608-7132
Current Organisation
University of Southern Denmark
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 18-10-2016
Publisher: National Institute for Health and Care Research
Date: 11-2017
DOI: 10.3310/HSDR05300
Abstract: Patients admitted to hospital outside normal working hours suffer higher complication and mortality rates than patients admitted at times when the hospital is fully operational. This ‘weekend effect’ is well described but poorly understood. It is not clear whether or not the effect extends to other out-of-hours periods, or how far excess mortality for out-of-hours admissions reflects a different presenting population with higher severity of illness and how much is explained by poorer availability and quality of services. We aimed to assess (1) the costs and benefits of introducing 7-day services, (2) whether or not mortality rates are elevated during all out-of-hours periods, (3) whether or not selection of more severely ill patients for admission out of hours explains elevated mortality rates and (4) whether or not mortality rates out of hours are related to staffing levels. We conducted a series of retrospective observational analyses of hospital episode data in England, using both national data and data from a single, large acute NHS trust. For the national studies, we analysed emergency admissions to all 140 non-specialist acute hospital trusts in England between April 2013 and February 2014 (over 12 million accident and emergency attendances and 4.5 million emergency admissions). For the single trust, we analysed emergency admissions between April 2004 and March 2014 (240,000 admissions). Deaths within 30 days of attendance or admission were compared for normal working hours and out-of-hours periods. We found that, in addition to elevated mortality for weekend admissions, mortality rates are also elevated for patients admitted during night-time periods. Elevated mortality was reduced for stroke patients in a large acute trust when more – and more experienced – nursing staff were present during the first hour of admission. Nationally, we found that excess mortality out of hours was largely explained by a sicker population of patients being selected for admission. However, mortality rates were still elevated on Sunday daytimes when we accounted for severity of patient illness. We also found that the estimated cost of implementing 7-day services exceeds the maximum amount that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence would recommend the NHS should spend on eradicating excess mortality at weekends. Our results depend on the accuracy and completeness of data recording by hospital staff. If accuracy of recording is related to time of patient admission, our results may be biased. Results based on data from a single trust should be treated as indicative. In addressing variations in patient outcomes across the week, a more nuanced approach, extending services for key specialties over critical periods – rather than implementing whole-system changes – is likely to be the most cost-effective. Future research should aim to develop and use appropriate measures of severity of illness to facilitate meaningful analysis of variations in patient outcomes, and to identify candidate specialties and critical periods for which extending services is likely to be cost-effective. The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 14-08-2013
DOI: 10.1002/HEC.2978
Abstract: Despite growing adoption of pay-for-performance (P4P) programmes in health care, there is remarkably little evidence on the cost-effectiveness of such schemes. We review the limited number of previous studies and critique the frameworks adopted and the narrow range of costs and outcomes considered, before proposing a new more comprehensive framework, which we apply to the first P4P scheme introduced for hospitals in England. We emphasise that evaluations of cost-effectiveness need to consider who the residual claimant is on any cost savings, the possibility of positive and negative spillovers, and whether performance improvement is a transitory or investment activity. Our application to the Advancing Quality initiative demonstrates that the incentive payments represented less than half of the £ 13 m total programme costs. By generating approximately 5200 quality-adjusted life years and £ 4.4 m of savings in reduced length of stay, we find that the programme was a cost-effective use of resources in its first 18 months.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2019
DOI: 10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2019.112409
Abstract: Standardized mortality rates are routinely used as measures of hospital performance and quality. Such metrics may, however, be biased if hospital admission thresholds differ and patient severity is not fully measured. To examine whether comparisons of hospital mortality rates suffer from selection bias due to variations in hospital admission rates, using the ex le of variations by day of the week. 12,900,687 emergency department attendances and 3,418,446 unplanned admissions to all acute non-specialist hospitals of the National Health Service in England between 1 April 2013 and 28 February 2014. Population-based retrospective cohort study. Mortality within 30 days of attendance is modelled as a function of weekend or weekday attendance and hospital-level predictors of admission rates using patient-level risk-adjusted probit and bivariate Heckman selection models. Robustness is supported by the use of different hospital-level predictors. When examining only the admitted population, patients admitted to hospital at weekends have a 0.206 percentage point higher risk of death within 30 days compared to patients admitted during the week. However, patients attending emergency departments at weekends have a 1.390 percentage point lower probability of being admitted to hospital. Once this selection bias is accounted for, the weekend effect in mortality is reduced by two-thirds to a 0.068 percentage point increase in the risk of death. Comparisons of standardized hospital mortality rates following unplanned admissions can be biased by variations in emergency department admission rates, leading to incorrect conclusions about quality. The use of mortality as a performance measure could therefore lead to misleading comparisons if admission rates vary and illness severity is not fully controlled for. Accounting for s le selection bias and dependence between admission and mortality rates is vital if accurate comparisons of hospital performance are to be made.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 08-07-2016
Abstract: Patients admitted as emergencies to hospitals at the weekend have higher death rates than patients admitted on weekdays. This may be because the restricted service availability at weekends leads to selection of patients with greater average severity of illness. We examined volumes and rates of hospital admissions and deaths across the week for patients presenting to emergency services through two routes: (a) hospital Accident and Emergency departments, which are open throughout the week and (b) services in the community, for which availability is more restricted at weekends. Retrospective observational study of all 140 non-specialist acute hospital Trusts in England analyzing 12,670,788 Accident and Emergency attendances and 4,656,586 emergency admissions (940,859 direct admissions from primary care and 3,715,727 admissions through Accident and Emergency) between April 2013 and February 2014.Emergency attendances and admissions to hospital and deaths in any hospital within 30 days of attendance or admission were compared for weekdays and weekends. Similar numbers of patients attended Accident and Emergency on weekends and weekdays. There were similar numbers of deaths amongst patients attending Accident and Emergency on weekend days compared with weekdays (378.0 vs. 388.3). Attending Accident and Emergency at the weekend was not associated with a significantly higher probability of death (risk-adjusted OR: 1.010). Proportionately fewer patients who attended Accident and Emergency at weekend were admitted to hospital (27.5% vs. 30.0%) and it is only amongst the subset of patients attending Accident and Emergency who were selected for admission to hospital that the probability of dying was significantly higher at the weekend (risk-adjusted OR: 1.054). The average volume of direct admissions from services in the community was 61% lower on weekend days compared to weekdays (1317 vs. 3404). There were fewer deaths following direct admission on weekend days than weekdays (35.9 vs. 80.8). The mortality rate was significantly higher at weekends amongst direct admissions (risk-adjusted OR: 1.212) due to the proportionately greater reduction in admissions relative to deaths. There are fewer deaths following hospital admission at weekends. Higher mortality rates at weekends are found only amongst the subset of patients who are admitted. The reduced availability of primary care services and the higher Accident and Emergency admission threshold at weekends mean fewer and sicker patients are admitted at weekends than during the week. Extending services in hospitals and in the community at weekends may increase the number of emergency admissions and therefore lower mortality, but may not reduce the absolute number of deaths.
Publisher: Maad Rayan Publishing Company
Date: 24-02-2020
Abstract: Pay-for-performance (P4P) is the provision of financial incentives to healthcare providers based on pre-specified performance targets. P4P has been used as a policy tool to improve healthcare provision globally. However, researchers tend to cluster into those working on high or low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with still limited knowledge exchange, potentially constraining opportunities for learning from across income settings. We reflect here on some commonalities and differences in the design of P4P schemes, research questions, methods and data across income settings. We highlight how a global perspective on knowledge synthesis could lead to innovations and further knowledge advancement.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 10-2013
Abstract: It is increasingly recognized that the design characteristics of pay-for-performance schemes are important in determining their impact. One important but under-studied design aspect is the extent to which pay-for-performance schemes reflect local priorities. The English Department of Health White Paper High Quality Care for All introduced a Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (CQUIN) Framework from April 2009, under which local commissioners and providers were required to negotiate and implement an annual pay-for-performance scheme. In 2010/2011, these schemes covered 1.5% (£1.0bn) of NHS expenditure. Local design was intended to offer flexibility to local priorities and generate local enthusiasm, while retaining good design properties of focusing on outcomes and processes with a clear link to quality, using established indicators where possible, and covering three key domains of quality (safety effectiveness patient experience) and innovation. We assess the extent to which local design achieved these objectives. Quantitative analysis of 337 locally negotiated CQUIN schemes in 2010/2011, along with qualitative analysis of 373 meetings (comprising 800 hours of observation) and 230 formal interviews (audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim) with NHS staff in 12 case study sites. The local development process was successful in identifying variation in local needs and priorities for quality improvement but the involvement of frontline clinical staff was insufficient to generate local enthusiasm around the schemes. The schemes did not in general live up to the requirements set by the Department of Health to ensure that local schemes addressed the original objectives for the CQUIN framework. While there is clearly an important case for local strategic and clinical input into the design of pay-for-performance schemes, this should be kept separate from the technical design process, which involves defining indicators, agreeing thresholds, and setting prices. These tasks require expertise that is unlikely to exist in each locality. The CQUIN framework potentially offered an opportunity to learn how technical design influenced outcome but due to the high degree of local experimentation and little systematic collection of key variables, it is difficult to derive lessons from this unstructured experiment about the impact and importance of different technical design factors on the effectiveness of pay-for-performance. Balancing the policy goal of localism with the objective of improving patient outcomes leads us to conclude that a somewhat firmer national framework would be preferable to a fully locally designed framework.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 14-03-2022
DOI: 10.1186/S43058-022-00280-8
Abstract: There is increasing awareness among researchers and policymakers of the potential for healthcare interventions to have consequences beyond those initially intended. These unintended consequences or “spillover effects” result from the complex features of healthcare organisation and delivery and can either increase or decrease overall effectiveness. Their potential influence has important consequences for the design and evaluation of implementation strategies and for decision-making. However, consideration of spillovers remains partial and unsystematic. We develop a comprehensive framework for the identification and measurement of spillover effects resulting from changes to the way in which healthcare services are organised and delivered. We conducted a scoping review to map the existing literature on spillover effects in health and healthcare interventions and used the findings of this review to develop a comprehensive framework to identify and measure spillover effects. The scoping review identified a wide range of different spillover effects, either experienced by agents not intentionally targeted by an intervention or representing unintended effects for targeted agents. Our scoping review revealed that spillover effects tend to be discussed in papers only when they are found to be statistically significant or might account for unexpected findings, rather than as a pre-specified feature of evaluation studies. This hinders the ability to assess all potential implications of a given policy or intervention. We propose a taxonomy of spillover effects, classified based on the outcome and the unit experiencing the effect: within-unit, between-unit, and diagonal spillover effects. We then present the INTENTS framework: Intended Non-intended TargEted Non-Targeted Spillovers. The INTENTS framework considers the units and outcomes which may be affected by an intervention and the mechanisms by which spillover effects are generated. The INTENTS framework provides a structured guide for researchers and policymakers when considering the potential effects that implementation strategies may generate, and the steps to take when designing and evaluating such interventions. Application of the INTENTS framework will enable spillover effects to be addressed appropriately in future evaluations and decision-making, ensuring that the full range of costs and benefits of interventions are correctly identified.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 03-2016
Publisher: Massachusetts Medical Society
Date: 07-08-2014
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Søren Rud Kristensen.