Geographic variation in health care--a special issue on the 40th anniversary of "Small area variation in health care delivery"

What explains the regional variation in the use of general practitioners in Australia?

BACKGROUND

Regional variation in the use of health care services is widespread. Identifying and understanding the sources of variation and how much variation is unexplained can inform policy interventions to improve the efficiency and equity of health care delivery.

METHODS

We examined the regional variation in the use of general practitioners (GPs) using data from the Social Health Atlas of Australia by Statistical Local Area (SLAs). 756 SLAs were included in the analysis. The outcome variable of GP visits per capita by SLAs was regressed on a series of demand-side factors measuring population health status and demographic characteristics and supply-side factors measuring access to physicians. Each group of variables was entered into the model sequentially to assess their explanatory share on regional differences in GP usage.

RESULTS

Both demand-side and supply-side factors were found to influence the frequency of GP visits. Specifically, areas in urban regions, areas with a higher percentage of the population who are obese, who have profound or severe disability, and who hold concession cards, and areas with a smaller percentage of the population who reported difficulty in accessing services have higher GP usage. The availability of more GPs led to higher use of GP services while the supply of more specialists reduced use. 30.56% of the variation was explained by medical need. Together, both need-related and supply-side variables accounted for 32.24% of the regional differences as measured by the standard deviation of adjusted GP-consultation rate.

CONCLUSIONS

There was substantial variation in GP use across Australian regions with only a small proportion of them being explained by population health needs, indicating a high level of unexplained clinical variation. Supply factors did not add a lot to the explanatory power. There was a lot of variation that was not attributable to the factors we could observe. This could be due to more subtle aspects of population need or preferences and therefore warranted. However, it could be due to practice patterns or other aspects of supply and be unexplained. Future work should try to explain the remaining unexplained variation.

Improving Patient Safety through the Use of Nursing Surveillance

Surveillance and monitoring each represent a distinct process in patient care. Monitoring involves observation, measurement, and recording of physiological parameters, while surveillance is a systematic, goal-directed process based on early detection of signs of change, interpretation of the clinical implications of such changes, and initiation of rapid, appropriate interventions. Through use of an illustrative clinical example based on Early Warning System scoring and rapid response teams, this article seeks to distinguish between nurse monitoring and surveillance to demonstrate the impact of surveillance on improving both care processes and patient care. Using a clinical example, differences between surveillance and monitoring as a trigger for deployment of the rapid response team were reviewed. The use of surveillance versus monitoring resulted in a mean reduction in rapid response team deployment time of 291 minutes. The median hospital length of stay for patients whose clinical care included using surveillance to initiate the deployment of the rapid response team was reduced by 4 days. Monitoring relies on observation and assessment while nursing surveillance incorporates monitoring with recognition and interpretation of the clinical implications of changes to guide decisions about subsequent actions. The clinical example described here supports that the use of an automated surveillance system versus monitoring had a measurable impact on clinical care.

Regional Variation in the Use of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Japan

BACKGROUND

Regional variations in health-care delivery, processes and spending have been reported across the world. Differences in revascularization procedures have been observed in the USA and Canada, but little is known about regional variation in revascularization procedures in Japan.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Diagnostic procedure combination summary tables for 2013 issued by the Japanese government were used. The rates of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) per 100,000 population aged ≥40 years in each prefecture were summarized by angina and myocardial infarction (MI). Linear regression analysis was performed to investigate the factors associated with regional variation in the rate of PCI for angina. The mean PCI rates were 189 and 67 per 100,000 population for angina and MI, respectively. The ratios between the highest and lowest regions were 4.9-fold in angina and 1.8-fold in MI. The factor most associated with generating regional variation in the use of PCI for angina was the rate of coronary angiography (CAG; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Wide regional variation was observed in the use of PCI both for angina and for MI. The variation was larger for angina, in which PCI were mostly elective and positively associated with the use of CAG. Further research is needed to prevent overuse and underuse of PCI to ensure more appropriate health-care delivery and to control health-care expenditure.

Considerations in the evaluation and determination of minimal risk in pragmatic clinical trials

Institutional review boards, which are charged with overseeing research, must classify the riskiness of proposed research according to a federal regulation known as the Common Rule (45 CFR 46, Subpart A) and by regulations governing the US Food and Drug Administration codified in 21 CFR 50. If an institutional review board determines that a clinical trial constitutes "minimal risk," there are important practical implications: the institutional review board may then allow a waiver or alteration of the informed consent process; the study may be carried out in certain vulnerable populations; or the study may be reviewed by institutional review boards using an expedited process. However, it is unclear how institutional review boards should assess the risk levels of pragmatic clinical trials. Such trials typically compare existing, widely used medical therapies or interventions in the setting of routine clinical practice. Some of the therapies may be considered risky of themselves but the study comparing them may or may not add to that pre-existing level of risk. In this article, we examine the common interpretations of research regulations regarding minimal-risk classifications and suggest that they are marked by a high degree of variability and confusion, which in turn may ultimately harm patients by delaying or hindering potentially beneficial research. We advocate for a clear differentiation between the risks associated with a given therapy and the incremental risk incurred during research evaluating those therapies as a basic principle for evaluating the risk of a pragmatic clinical trial. We then examine two pragmatic clinical trials and consider how various factors including clinical equipoise, practice variation, research methods such as cluster randomization, and patients' perspectives may contribute to current and evolving concepts of minimal-risk determinations, and how this understanding in turn affects the design and conduct of pragmatic clinical trials.