Patient Preferences between Minimum Volume Thresholds and Nationwide Healthcare Provision: the Example of Total Knee Arthroplasty

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study is to investigate, whether patients in Germany are willing to travel a longer time to a certain hospital in order to receive a better treatment (lower 90-days mortality, lower risk of revision) in elective total knee arthroplasty. In addition, we analyzed which characteristics determined patient preference.

Methods The participants were recruited via random samples of registration offices and hospitals. All have undergone discrete choice experiments for the outcomes mortality and revision. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the patientʼs preference. Logistic regression models were applied to identify characteristics that influence decision making.

Results 71.7% (mortality) and 86.11% (revision) of the respondents are willing to travel a longer time in order to lower their surgical risk. The amount of people that are willing to do so is even larger in the subgroup recruited in the hospital (78.5% respectively 90.7%).

Conclusion The majority of the participants are willing to travel longer to lower their surgical risk for elective knee arthroplasty. It has to be considered, that the population under study might not be representative. Patientʼs preferences corresponds with the aim of introducing minimum volume thresholds. Future studies should focus on other indications and outcomes.

Key words

minimum volume thresholds - patientʼs preference - knee arthroplasty - risk of revision - mortality within 90 days

Publication History

Article published online:
16 September 2019

• References/Literatur

• 1 Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss. § 136b SGB V Beschlüsse des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses zur Qualitätssicherung im Krankenhaus. Im Internet (Stand: 19.01.2019): https://www.sozialgesetzbuch-sgb.de/sgbv/136b.html
• 2 Hentschker C, Mennicken R, Reifferscheid A. et al. Der kausale Zusammenhang zwischen Zahl der Fälle und Behandlungsqualität in der Krankenhausversorgung. RWI Materialien Heft 101. Im Internet (Stand: 09.09.2017): http://www.rwi-essen.de/media/content/pages/publikationen/rwi-materialien/rwi-materialien_101.pdf
• 3 Pieper D, Mathes T, Neugebauer E. et al. State of evidence on the relationship between high-volume hospitals and outcomes in surgery: a systematic review of systematic reviews. J Am Coll Surg 2013; 216: 1015-1025.e18
• 4 Bleß H. Weißbuch Gelenkersatz – Versorgungssituation endoprothetischer Hüft- und Knieoperationen in Deutschland. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2017
• 5 Geraedts M, de Cruppé W, Blum K. et al. Umsetzung und Auswirkungen der Mindestmengen. Ergebnisse der Begleitforschung. Dtsch Arztebl 2008; 105: 890-896
• 6 de Cruppé W, Malik M, Geraedts M. Umsetzung der Mindestmengenvorgaben: Analyse der Krankenhausqualitätsberichte. Dtsch Arztebl 2014; 111: 33-34
• 7 Zipkin DA, Umscheid CA, Keating NL. et al. Evidence-based risk communication: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2014; 161: 270-280 doi:10.7326/M14-0295
• 8 Wissenschaftliches Institut der AOK. QSR-Bundeswerte 2014. Im Internet (Stand: 05.09.2017): http://www.qualitaetssicherung-mit-routinedaten.de/imperia/md/qsr/kliniken/wido_qsr_bundeswerte_2014.pdf
• 9 Leidl R, Reitmeir P. A value set for the EQ-5D based on experienced health states: development and testing for the German population. Pharmacoeconomics 2011; 29: 521-534 doi:10.2165/11538380-000000000-00000
• 10 Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R. et al. International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: a review and analysis. Value Health 2009; 12: 1194-1200
• 11 König HH, Bernert S, Angermeyer MC. et al. Comparison of population health status in six European countries: results of a representative survey using the EQ-5D questionnaire. Medical Care 2009; 47: 255-261
• 12 Knies S, Evers S, Candel M. et al. Utilities of the EQ-5D: transferable or not?. Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27: 9
• 13 Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health 2009; 12 (Suppl. 01) S5-S9
• 14 Peeters Y, Stiggelbout AM. Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value Health 2010; 13: 306-309
• 15 Mann R, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ-5D dimensions. Health Econ 2009; 18: 363-372
• 16 Finlayson SR, Birkmeyer JD, Tosteson AN. et al. Patient preferences for location of care: implications for regionalization. Med Care 1999; 37: 204-209
• 17 Chang R, Joyce JJ, Castillo J. et al. Parental preference regarding hospitals for children undergoing surgery: a trade-off between travel distance and potential outcome improvement. Can J Cardiol 2004; 20: 877-882
• 18 Shalowitz DI, Nivasch E, Burger RA. et al. Are patients willing to travel for better ovarian cancer care?. Gynecol Oncol 2018; 148: 42-48 doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.10.018
• 19 Sauerland D, Wübker A. Wie Qualitätsinformationen die Krankenhauswahl beeinflussen – eine empirische Untersuchung. Im Internet (Stand: 09.11.2017): https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/09d7/4c8b9616ad05b7aaa193966b6f51babccd2b.pdf
• 20 Institut für angewandte Qualitätsförderung und Forschung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH (AQUA). Qualitätsreport 2013. Im Internet (Stand: 11.05.2017): http://www.sqg.de/sqg/upload/CONTENT/Qualitaetsberichte/2013/AQUA-Qualitaetsreport-2013.pdf
• 21 Geraedts M, de Cruppé W, Blum K. et al. [Distances to hospitals performing minimum volume relevant procedures in Germany 2004 to 2006]. Gesundheitswesen 2010; 72: 271-278
• 22 de Cruppé W, Malik M, Geraedts M. Minimum volume standards in German hospitals: do they get along with procedure centralization? A retrospective longitudinal data analysis. BMC Health Serv Res 2015; 15: 279