Search

Objective: To establish a methodological approach to compare two high‐need, high‐cost (HNHC) patient personas internationally. Data sources: Linked individual‐level administrative data from the inpatient and outpatient sectors compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes, and Needs in Care (ICCONIC) across 11 countries: Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. Study design: We outline a methodological approach to identify HNHC patient types for international comparisons that reflect complex, priority populations defined by the National Academy of Medicine. We define two patient profiles using accessible patient‐level datasets linked across different domains of care—hospital care, primary care, outpatient specialty care, post‐acute rehabilitative care, long‐term care, home‐health care, and outpatient drugs. The personas include a frail older adult with a hip fracture with subsequent hip replacement and an older person with complex multimorbidity, including heart failure and diabetes. We demonstrate their comparability by examining the characteristics and clinical diagnoses captured across countries. Data collection/extraction methods: Data collected by ICCONIC partners. Principal findings: Across 11 countries, the identification of HNHC patient personas was feasible to examine variations in healthcare utilization, spending, and patient outcomes. The ability of countries to examine linked, individual‐level data varied, with the Netherlands, Canada, and Germany able to comprehensively examine care across all seven domains, whereas other countries such as England, Switzerland, and New Zealand were more limited. All countries were able to identify a hip fracture persona and a heart failure persona. Patient characteristics were reassuringly similar across countries. Conclusion: Although there are cross‐country differences in the availability and structure of data sources, countries had the ability to effectively identify comparable HNHC personas for international study. This work serves as the methodological paper for six accompanying papers examining differences in spending, utilization, and outcomes for these personas across countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objectives of this study are to compare the relative use of different postacute care settings in different countries and to compare three important outcomes as follows: total expenditure, total days of care in different care settings, and overall longevity over a 1‐year period following a hip fracture. Data Sources: We used administrative data from hospitals, institutional and home‐based long‐term care (LTC), physician visits, and medications compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes, and Needs in Care (ICCONIC) from five countries as follows: Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Data Extraction Methods: Data were extracted from existing administrative data systems in each participating country. Study Design: This is a retrospective cohort study of all individuals admitted to acute care for hip fracture. Descriptive comparisons were used to examine aggregate institutional and home‐based postacute care. Care trajectories were created to track sequential care settings after acute‐care discharge through institutional and community‐based care in three countries where detailed information allowed. Comparisons in patient characteristics, utilization, and costs were made across these trajectories and countries. Principal Findings: Across five countries with complete LTC data, we found notable variations with Germany having the highest days of home‐based services with relatively low costs, while Sweden incurred the highest overall expenditures. Comparisons of trajectories found that France had the highest use of inpatient rehabilitation. Germany was most likely to discharge hip fracture patients to home. Over 365 days, France averaged the highest number of days in institution with 104, Canada followed at 94, and Germany had just 87 days of institutional care on average. Conclusion: In this comparison of LTC services following a hip fracture, we found international differences in total use of institutional and noninstitutional care, longevity, and total expenditures. There exist opportunities to organize postacute care differently to maximize independence and mitigate costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]