It’s been a while since I last put up a blog here. My only excuse is that I’ve been so heavily involved in doing healthcare information that I’ve not had enough time to talk about it. In particular I’ve been working on what remains as much as ever my hobby horse, pathways. So I thought it might be interesting to give an example of one. Or rather two.
Two women, one aged 61 and the other 62, both had emergency hospital admissions for strokes. The first woman’s hospital stay only lasted a night, which meant it incurred just a short stay emergency charge of about £1400, but the second stayed four nights and cost £4400.
So the obvious issue is – why was there such difference between them?
The first place to look is among the secondary diagnoses recorded for both women.
The short-stay case, primary and secondary diagnoses
| Code | Diagnosis |
| I639 | Cerebral infarction, unspecified |
| I251 | Atherosclerotic heart disease |
| I248 | Other forms of acute ischaemic heart disease |
| G409 | Epilepsy, unspecified |
| Z867 | Personal history of diseases of the circulatory system |
Diagnoses for the four-day case
| Code | Diagnosis |
| I639 | Cerebral infarction, unspecified |
| I678 | Other specified cerebrovascular diseases |
| F329 | Depressive episode, unspecified |
| Z870 | Personal history of diseases of the respiratory system |
To a non-clinician like me at least, nothing springs out from this to explain the differences between the two cases. And that’s the problem with focusing exclusively on a single event in this way, in this case on the hospital spell: it gives much too limited a view of the patients’ real experience.
The picture changes fundamentally if we take a longer view. We don’t have information about the GP care of these two women, but we do know about all their treatment in acute hospitals, in community hospitals, in community health services, even in social care. So let’s take a look at what happened to them both in the period leading up to their strokes.
For the patient who was in for a day after the stroke, the only care we know about over the previous eighteen months were two outpatient attendances in Cardiology. It seems that she must have shown symptoms of a developing heart problem, but nothing serious enough to justify further hospital treatment. Ten months after the second outpatient clinic, she attended A&E followed her stroke and was admitted for emergency treatment.
With the other patient, on the other hand, the picture could hardly be more different. Below is the pathway of just six months before her stroke (drawn to the scale of the lengths of each event):
- She was admitted for an acute myocardial infarction five months before the stroke
- A month later she was in for a pulmonary embolism
- She had a great deal of care in the community, including physio, occupational health as well as district nursing
- She was taken into residential care
- Despite the care she was receiving, she had four more emergency admissions for respiratory or suspected cardiac symptoms over a period of about a month some three months before the stroke.
- She then had her stroke
All we need is to move away from our focus on a single acute event and look instead at the whole pathway of her care, to understand that we are talking about two profoundly different cases. This woman is simply far more ill, in a state similar to what is referred to as ‘frailty’ in older patients: any problem, even a small one, can lead to a string of others, some far more serious.
So there’s absolutely nothing surprising about the fact that she needed a longer stay in hospital after the stroke. In fact, it’s now clear that while the stroke was a major event in the history of the other woman, for this one it was just the latest in a series of severe problems. If we wanted to take a look at ways of making her care more effective, or more cost-effective, it might not even be with the stroke event that we’d start (after all, she was in hospital for 25 days after the myocardial infarction).
All it takes to get this much richer and, I’m sure you’ll agree, much more valuable view of the patient’s healthcare is to take a pathway view. And all that needs is to get hold of the data and string it together...
