Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of the most common causes of acute hospital admissions in the UK,¹ accounting for 10% of all medical admissions² and over 90 000 admissions to hospital every year.³ The number of admissions has increased by 50% in the last decade⁴ and now accounts for about 1 million bed days per annum. Hospital admissions carry a high mortality and patients may have extended lengths of stay.⁵

There is a wide variation in both length of stay (LOS) and mortality between hospitals.^5,6 Some of the variability can be explained by patient factors but much cannot. An earlier pilot study suggested that better resourced hospitals achieve better outcomes.⁷ This study aimed to explore possible relationships between resources available for the care of COPD patients and organisation of care with the patient outcomes of death, LOS, and readmission.

METHODS

The study was run jointly by the Clinical Effectiveness and Evaluation unit (CEEu) of the Royal College of Physicians and by the British Thoracic Society (BTS). It was coordinated from the CEEu but employed local data collection using standardised methods. It had a multidisciplinary steering committee with representation from professional bodies and managerial organisations as well as policy makers. All units within the UK identified as admitting acute medical cases were invited by letter to participate in the study.

RESULTS

Patient and organisational audit data were available on 7986 episodes of care for 7529 patients from 234 units. Only the first episode on each patient is included in this paper.

There was wide inter-unit variation in both the resources available (table 2⇓) and in outcomes. The number of respiratory consultants per 1000 beds varied from 0 to 27 (median 3.5). In-hospital mortality was 7.4% (542/7313) (IQR 3–11%) and mortality within 90 days was 15.3% (1112/7274) (IQR 9–21%). For discharged patients the readmission rate within 90 days was 31.4% (2069/6585) (IQR 22–40%). Median LOS for discharged patients was 6 days (IQR 5–7). Mean LOS was 8.3 days with 40% (2611/6544) staying more than 7 days and 15% (969/6544) more than 14 days.

The most important patient level prognostic factors of those recorded were performance status, blood urea, serum albumin, arterial pH, arterial oxygen saturation and age (see table S1 available on Thorax website at http://www.thoraxjnl.com/supplemental). For LOS, performance status, serum albumin, age, arterial oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate were the main predictors. Performance status and previous admission were the two main factors associated with readmission. To incorporate both patient and unit level factors in the analysis, random effects logistic regression modelling was used. For each outcome we investigated the correlation of unit organisation and resource factors after adjusting for the relevant set of patient case mix factors. Mortality rates (both inpatient and 90 day) were lower in units with more respiratory staff per 1000 beds (table 3⇓). There were no other apparent associations with death among the other resource or organisational factors.

There were no resource or organisational factors associated with readmission rates. The percentage of patients staying beyond 7 days decreased with a greater number of respiratory consultants, the availability of an early discharge scheme, and the presence of local guidelines about follow up of patients after discharge (table 4⇓). Trends regarding the benefits of a formal pulmonary rehabilitation programme on LOS were more tenuous (>7 days OR 0.90 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.05); >14 days OR 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.02).

Units with the worst organisational scores had proportionately more patients staying longer in hospital (table 5⇓). There were no obvious associations of organisational score with mortality or with readmission. There were no apparent associations between size of hospital (as reflected by catchment population, bed numbers, or annual number of patients admitted) and mortality or readmission, but there was evidence (table 5⇓) that patients stayed longer in the hospitals with fewest beds. At the unit level there was a weak correlation between the proportion of discharged patients staying more than 14 days in hospital and death within 90 days (Spearman 0.19, p = 0.003). The correlation of LOS with the readmission rate of discharged patients was weaker still (Spearman 0.06, p = 0.36).

DISCUSSION

This study of hospital inpatient COPD care included all four countries of the UK. Considerable effort was put into achieving a high participation rate and a high standard of data quality.

There are limitations within the methodology of retrospective case note audit and there is limited power (related to only 40 case sample size per site) to determine what factors affect performance at the individual trust level.⁵ Not all items of data collection were complete and, given the many variables and analyses, some associations could have arisen by chance. However, the measures of the quality of data collected compare well with the best audit data,⁹ and the very high participation rate (94%) permits some generalisation of the results with implications not just for the UK health economy but also for other healthcare systems providing COPD services.

The findings detailed here are consistent with previous audits of COPD from the UK and with other sources in the United States that have examined hospital outcomes and related these to resource issues.^10–,¹² Mortality rates for exacerbations of COPD (both in hospital and in the period immediately after) are high, with 15.3% of patients dying within 90 days of admission. The wide variation between hospital units, unexplained by the clinical case mix of admitted patients, is probably unacceptable. We have also confirmed a high variability between different units for many other aspects of both organisation of care and the processes of care.

We have confirmed (in larger numbers) the patient factors that are predictors of outcome. The influence of performance status on each of the outcomes is of particular interest. This clinical variable was developed for use in oncology trials where it is established as a powerful independent predictor of outcome. Oncologists record it routinely (using either the ECOG¹³ or WHO¹⁴ 5 point scales) and apply it in clinical practice. In contrast, few physicians ask about or record performance status specifically in the case records. It had a much more powerful effect on mortality (2% in the best category compared with 38% in the most severe) than the more respiratory specific factors, probably because it combines all the disabilities affecting an individual within a single scale. This study confirms its value as a case mix control factor that is perhaps worthy of application to other chronic medical conditions.

But this study goes further and shows that, even after control for the patient case mix, both resources and organisation of care may impact on mortality and on LOS. Hospitals cannot control for the severity of underlying illness in patients, but they can ensure that their services are effectively staffed and organised to manage those being admitted.

Previous studies have suggested that better staffing levels are associated with better mortality outcome in UK hospitals.^7,10 In our study the number of respiratory specialists per 1000 hospital beds correlated best with outcome and suggests that units with four or more respiratory specialists per 1000 hospital beds—as recommended by the Royal College of Physicians¹⁵—have lower mortality rates. A trend for improved mortality with increasing numbers was seen across all tertile groups (table 3⇑). Similar trends were also seen for junior doctors and for all respiratory medical staff (table 3⇑).

No such relationship was seen for general physicians either at senior or junior level. It may not necessarily be the individual care offered by a consultant that makes the difference, but something about the whole unit that is associated with a higher number of respiratory consultant staff. The data relating to LOS (table 4⇑) may give some indication as to the nature of this effect. Here both the number of respiratory consultant staff and some organisational issues (such as the availability of local management guidelines and a composite organisational score derived from good medical practice) are outcome indicators for shorter LOS. There was also evidence that patients stayed longer in hospitals with fewer beds (table 5⇑), something associated also with fewer respiratory doctors. In essence, this might reflect a whole systems organisation and resource richness that affects care rather than any individual component. Many scores exist that look at patient factors to predict survival, but few exist to look at factors within a health care unit with regard to predicting outcome. We note a previous organisational score used where the authors suggest it is a reliable way of comparing units/trusts.^16–,¹⁸ Care is provided by teams of health professionals and future organisational scores need to reflect this. In stroke care the factors that describe a well organised stroke unit have been set out¹⁹ and a similar exercise is needed for COPD care.

It was disappointing that none of the resource or organisational factors accounted for the variation in readmission rate. Readmission rates are seen to be a “failure” by the health service to address the multiple needs of COPD patients, and the very high readmission rate heightens the political profile. Readmission rates have formed part of the UK hospital star ratings. However, our inability to identify organisational predictors in a very large study shows how complex a challenge it is to manage chronic ill health. We speculate that the high readmission rate may reflect the severity of illness in such patients who may be regarded as pre-terminal. Alternatively, there may simply be a lack of alternative coping strategies for acutely breathless patients to adopt other than admission to hospital. Empowering the “expert patient” to self-manage their exacerbation using rescue packs supplemented by loan of support equipment and access to healthcare staff at home offer alternative strategies as yet to be evaluated on a wide scale.

Balancing the provision of social or home care support with that of admission for further investigation and possible risks of hospital acquired infection is unclear. Further work into the value of case management and other innovations practised by many US healthcare providers²⁰ and now piloted in the UK²¹ is required to evaluate a fresh approach to this cycle of recurrent admission.

Our conclusion that resources and organisation of care influence patient outcomes is important because health service providers can influence organisational structures. But managers and commissioners of care can only commission structures that are described for them, together with the evidence that new structures are better for patients. The creation of specialised stroke units has been possible because the features have been defined and shown to be valuable—and recent data suggest that outcomes are improving. We have shown that organisation (numbers of specialist staff) is relevant to patient outcome in COPD. Further studies are now needed to determine what it is that these specialists are adding to the care package.