Patient outcomes, efficiency, and adverse events for elective hip and knee replacement in private and NHS hospitals: a population-based cohort study in England

Anderson, Michael ORCID: 0000-0002-8454-4640, Macchiavello, Rocco ORCID: 0009-0007-5465-3153, Maynou, Laia ORCID: 0000-0002-0447-2959, Kyriopoulos, Ilias-Ioannis, McGuire, Alistair and Mossialos, Elias ORCID: 0000-0001-8664-9297 (2024) Patient outcomes, efficiency, and adverse events for elective hip and knee replacement in private and NHS hospitals: a population-based cohort study in England. The Lancet Regional Health - Europe, 40. ISSN 2666-7762

Text (Anderson_patient-outcomes-efficiency-adverse-events--published) - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (305kB)

• Author
• Author
• Author
• Author
• Author
• Scopus publication

Abstract

Background: Since the early 2000s, the National Health Service (NHS) in England has expanded provision of publicly funded care in private hospitals as a strategy to meet growing demand for elective care. This study aims to compare patient outcomes, efficiency and adverse events in private and NHS hospitals when providing elective hip and knee replacement. Methods: We conducted a population-based cohort study including patients ≥18 years, undergoing a publicly funded elective hip or knee replacement in private and NHS hospitals in England between January 1st 2016 and March 31st 2019. Comparative probability was estimated for three patient outcome measures (in-hospital mortality, emergency readmissions with 28 days, hospital transfers), two efficiency measures (pre-operative length of stay (LOS) >0 day and post-operative LOS >2 days), and four adverse events (hospital-associated infection, adverse drug reactions, pressure ulcers, venous thromboembolism). Probit regression was used to adjust for observable confounding followed by instrumental variable (IV) analyses to also account for unobserved confounding at the patient-level. Propensity score matching was then used as a robustness check. Findings: Our study sample included 169,232 patients in private hospitals, and 262,659 patients in NHS hospitals. Estimates from probit regression indicated that treatment in private hospital was associated with reduced probability of in-hospital mortality (−0.0009, 95% CI −0.0010, −0.0007), emergency readmissions (−0.0181, 95% CI −0.0191, −0.0172), hospital transfers (−0.0076, 95% CI −0.0084, −0.0068), prolonged post-operative LOS (−0.1174, 95% CI −0.1547, −0.0801), hospital-associated infection (−0.0115, 95% CI −0.0123, −0.0107), adverse drug reactions (−0.0051, 95% CI −0.0056, −0.0046), pressure ulcers (−0.0017, 95% CI −0.0019, −0.0014), and venous thromboembolism (−0.0027, 95% CI −0.0031, −0.0022). IV analyses produced no significant differences between private and NHS hospitals, except for lower probability in private hospitals of hospital-associated infection (−0.0057, 95% CI −0.0081, −0.0032), and greater probability in private hospitals of prolonged post-operative LOS (0.2653, 95% CI 0.1833, 0.3472). Propensity score matching produced similar results to probit regression. Interpretation: Our findings indicate there is potentially important unobservable confounding at the patient-level between private and NHS hospitals not adjusted for when using probit regression or propensity score matching.

Item Type:	Article
Additional Information:	© 2024 The Author(s)
Divisions:	Management Health Policy
Subjects:	R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine > RA0421 Public health. Hygiene. Preventive Medicine
Date Deposited:	09 Apr 2024 16:21
Last Modified:	29 Apr 2024 09:21
URI:	http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/122596

Actions (login required)

View Item