Do AR-DRGs adequately describe the trauma patient episode in New South Wales, Australia?

Researching the reliability of accreditation survey teams: lessons learnt when things went awry

Accreditation of health organisations, occurring in over 70 countries, is predicated upon the reliability of survey teams judgements, but we do not know the extent to which survey teams are reliable. To contribute evidence to this issue, we investigated the reliability of two survey teams simultaneously assessing an organisation. The setting was a large Australian teaching hospital, and data were derived from interviews, observations and survey documents. Participants were from four groups: hospital staff, accreditation agency personnel and surveyors, and research staff. Thematic analysis was employed to identify significant factors that influenced the study. The two survey teams ratings and recommendations demonstrated high levels of agreement. However, while a common understanding of the study existed, the research was compromised. There were difficulties enacting the study. Contrary to negotiated arrangements, the pressure of the study resulted in surveyors discussing evidence and their interpretation of standards. Uncontrollable circumstances (late changes of personnel), and unexpected events (a breakdown of working relationships), challenged the study. The twin lessons learnt are that a consistent survey outcome is likely to be reached when reliability of process and consistent application of standards are pursued, and research requires negotiating challenges and relationships.

Major trauma: the unseen financial burden to trauma centres, a descriptive multicentre analysis

Objective This research examines the existing funding model for in-hospital trauma patient episodes in New South Wales (NSW), Australia and identifies factors that cause above-average treatment costs. Accurate information on the treatment costs of injury is needed to guide health-funding strategy and prevent inadvertent underfunding of specialist trauma centres, which treat a high trauma casemix. Methods Admitted trauma patient data provided by 12 trauma centres were linked with financial data for 2008–09. Actual costs incurred by each hospital were compared with state-wide Australian Refined Diagnostic Related Groups (AR-DRG) average costs. Patient episodes where actual cost was higher than AR-DRG cost allocation were examined. Results There were 16 693 patients at a total cost of AU$178.7 million. The total costs incurred by trauma centres were $14.7 million above the NSW peer-group average cost estimates. There were 10 AR-DRG where the total cost variance was greater than $500 000. The AR-DRG with the largest proportion of patients were the upper limb injury categories, many of whom had multiple body regions injured and/or a traumatic brain injury (P < 0.001). Conclusions AR-DRG classifications do not adequately describe the trauma patient episode and are not commensurate with the expense of trauma treatment. A revision of AR-DRG used for trauma is needed. What is known about this topic? Severely injured trauma patients often have multiple injuries, in more than one body region and the determination of appropriate AR-DRG can be difficult. Pilot research suggests that the AR-DRG do not accurately represent the care that is required for these patients. What does this paper add? This is the first multicentre analysis of treatment costs and coding variance for major trauma in Australia. This research identifies the limitations of the current AR-DRGS and those that are particularly problematic. The value of linking trauma registry and financial data within each trauma centre is demonstrated. What are the implications for practitioners? Further work should be conducted between trauma services, clinical coding and finance departments to improve the accuracy of clinical coding, review funding models and ensure that AR-DRG allocation is commensurate with the expense of trauma treatment.

Acute costs and predictors of higher treatment costs of trauma in New South Wales, Australia

BACKGROUND

Accurate economic data are fundamental for improving current funding models and ultimately in promoting the efficient delivery of services. The financial burden of a high trauma casemix to designated trauma centres in Australia has not been previously determined, and there is some evidence that the episode funding model used in Australia results in the underfunding of trauma.

AIM

To describe the costs of acute trauma admissions in trauma centres, identify predictors of higher treatment costs and cost variance in New South Wales (NSW), Australia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data linkage of admitted trauma patient and financial data provided by 12 Level 1 NSW trauma centres for the 08/09 financial year was performed. Demographic, injury details and injury scores were obtained from trauma registries. Individual patient general ledger costs (actual trauma patient costs), Australian Refined Diagnostic Related Groups (AR-DRG) and state-wide average costs (which form the basis of funding) were obtained. The actual costs incurred by the hospital were then compared with the state-wide AR-DRG average costs. Multivariable multiple linear regression was used for identifying predictors of costs.

RESULTS

There were 17,522 patients, the average per patient cost was $10,603 and the median was $4628 (interquartile range: $2179-10,148). The actual costs incurred by trauma centres were on average $134 per bed day above AR-DRG costs-determined costs. Falls, road trauma and violence were the highest causes of total cost. Motor cyclists and pedestrians had higher median costs than motor vehicle occupants. As a result of greater numbers, patients with minor injury had comparable total costs with those generated by patients with severe injury. However the median cost of severely injured patients was nearly four times greater. The count of body regions injured, sex, length of stay, serious traumatic brain injury and admission to the Intensive Care Unit were significantly associated with increased costs (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

This multicentre trauma costing study demonstrated the feasibility of trauma registry and financial data linkage. Discrepancies between the observed costs of care in these 12 trauma centres and the NSW average AR-DRG costs suggest that trauma care is currently underfunded in NSW.

Acute costs and predictors of higher treatment costs for major paediatric trauma in New South Wales, Australia

AIMS

To describe the costs of acute trauma admissions for children aged ≤15 years in trauma centres; to identify predictors of higher treatment costs and quantify differences in actual and state-wide average cost in New South Wales (NSW), Australia.

METHOD

Admitted trauma patient data provided by 12 trauma centres was linked with financial data for 2008-2009. Demographic, injury details and injury severity scores (ISS) were obtained from trauma registries. Individual patient costs, Australian Refined Diagnostic Related Groups (AR-DRG) and state-wide average costs were obtained. Actual costs incurred by each hospital were compared with state-wide AR-DRG average costs. Multivariate multiple linear regression identified predictors of cost.

RESULTS

There were 3493 patients with a total cost of AUD$20.2 million. Falls (AUD$6.7 million) and road trauma (AUD$4.4 million) had the highest total expenditure. The reduction in cost between ISS < 9 compared to ISS 9-12 and ISS > 12 was significant (P < 0.0001). The median cost of injury increased with every additional body region injured (P < 0.0001). For each additional day spent in hospital, there was an increased cost of AUD$1898 and patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) cost AUD$7358 more than patients not admitted to ICU. The total costs incurred by trauma centres were AUD$1.4 million above the NSW peer group average cost estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

The high financial cost of paediatric patient treatment highlights the need to ensure prevention remains a priority in Australia. Hospitals tasked with providing trauma care should be appropriately funded and future funding models should consider trauma severity.

Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) over-triage and the financial implications for major trauma centres in NSW, Australia

Background

In NSW Australia, a formal trauma system including the use of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) has existed for over 20 years. Despite providing many advantages in NSW, HEMS patients are frequently over-triaged; leading to financial implications for major trauma centres that receive HEMS patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the financial implications of HEMS over-triage from the perspective of major trauma centres in NSW.

Methods

The study sample included all trauma patients transported via HEMS to 12 major trauma centres in NSW during the period: 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009. Clinical data were gathered from individual hospital trauma registries and merged with financial information obtained from casemix units at respective hospitals. HEMS over-triage was estimated based on the local definition of minor to moderate trauma (ISS≤12) and hospital length of stay of less than 24 hrs. The actual treatment costs were determined and compared to state-wide peer group averages to obtain estimates of potential funding discrepancies.

Results

A total of 707 patients transported by HEMS were identified, including 72% pre-hospital (PH; n=507) and 28% inter-hospital (IH; n=200) transports. Over-triage was estimated at 51% for PH patients and 29% for IH patients. Compared to PH patients, IH patients were more costly to treat on average (IH: $42,604; PH: $25,162), however PH patients were more costly overall ($12,329,618 [PH]; $8,265,152 [IH]). When comparing actual treatment costs to peer group averages we found potential funding discrepancies ranging between 4% and 32% across patient groups. Using a sensitivity analysis, the potential funding discrepancy increased with increasing levels of over-triage.

Conclusions

HEMS patients are frequently over-triaged in NSW, leading to funding implications for major trauma centres. In general, HEMS patient treatment costs are higher than the peer group average and the potential funding discrepancy varies by injury severity and the type of transport performed. Although severely injured HEMS patients are more costly to treat, HEMS patients with minor injuries make up the majority of HEMS transports and have larger relative potential funding discrepancies. Future episode funding models need to account for the variability of trauma patients and the proportion of patients transported via HEMS.

The injury profile and acute treatment costs of major trauma in older people in New South Wales

AIMS

To Describe injury profile and costs of older person trauma in New South Wales; quantify variations with peer group costs; and identify predictors of higher costs.

METHODS

Nine level 1 New South Wales trauma centres provided data on major traumas (aged ≥ 55 years) during 2008-2009 financial year. Trauma register and financial data of each institution were linked. Treatment costs were compared with peer group Australian Refined Diagnostic Related Groups costs, on which hospital funding is based. Variables examined through multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Six thousand two hundred and eighty-nine patients were admitted for trauma. Most common injury mechanism was falls (74.8%) then road trauma (14.9%). Median patient cost was $7044 (Q1-3: $3405-13 930) and total treatment costs $76 694 252. Treatment costs were $5 813 975 above peer group average. Intensive care unit admission, age, injury severity score, length of stay and traumatic brain injury were independent predictors of increased costs.

CONCLUSION

Older person trauma attracts greater costs and length of stay. Cost increases with age and injury severity. Hospital financial information and trauma registry data provides accurate cost information that may inform future funding.

The variation of acute treatment costs of trauma in high-income countries

BACKGROUND

In order to assist health service planning, understanding factors that influence higher trauma treatment costs is essential. The majority of trauma costing research reports the cost of trauma from the perspective of the receiving hospital. There has been no comprehensive synthesis and little assessment of the drivers of cost variation, such as country, trauma, subgroups and methods. The aim of this review is to provide a synthesis of research reporting the trauma treatment costs and factors associated with higher treatment costs in high income countries.

METHODS

A systematic search for articles relating to the cost of acute trauma care was performed and included studies reporting injury severity scores (ISS), per patient cost/charge estimates; and costing methods. Cost and charge values were indexed to 2011 cost equivalents and converted to US dollars using purchasing power parities.

RESULTS

A total of twenty-seven studies were reviewed. Eighty-one percent of these studies were conducted in high income countries including USA, Australia, Europe and UK. Studies either reported a cost (74.1%) or charge estimate (25.9%) for the acute treatment of trauma. Across studies, the median per patient cost of acute trauma treatment was $22,448 (IQR: $11,819-$33,701). However, there was variability in costing methods used with 18% of studies providing comprehensive cost methods. Sixty-three percent of studies reported cost or charge items incorporated in their cost analysis and 52% reported items excluded in their analysis. In all publications reviewed, predictors of cost included Injury Severity Score (ISS), surgical intervention, hospital and intensive care, length of stay, polytrauma and age.

CONCLUSION

The acute treatment cost of trauma is higher than other disease groups. Research has been largely conducted in high income countries and variability exists in reporting costing methods as well as the actual costs. Patient populations studied and the cost methods employed are the primary drivers for the treatment costs. Targeted research into the costs of trauma care is required to facilitate informed health service planning.