IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0244313.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What could prevent chronic condition admissions assessed as preventable in rural and metropolitan contexts? An analysis of clinicians’ perspectives from the DaPPHne study

Author

Listed:
  • Jo Longman
  • Jennifer Johnston
  • Dan Ewald
  • Adrian Gilliland
  • Michael Burke
  • Tabeth Mutonga
  • Megan Passey

Abstract

Introduction: Reducing potentially preventable hospitalisations (PPH) is a priority for health services. This paper describes the factors that clinicians perceived contributed to preventable admissions for angina, diabetes, congestive heart failure (CHF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and what they considered might have been done in the three months leading up to an admission to prevent it. Methods: The study was conducted in a rural and a metropolitan health district in NSW, Australia. Expert Panels reviewed detailed case reports to assess preventability. For those admissions identified as preventable, comments from clinicians indicating what they perceived could have made a difference and/or been done differently to prevent each of the preventable admissions were analysed qualitatively. Results: 148 (46%) of 323 admissions were assessed as preventable. Across the two districts, the most commonly identified groups of contributing factors to preventable admissions were: ‘Systems issues: Community based services missing or inadequate or not referred to’; ‘Patient issues: Problems with adherence/self-management’; and ‘Clinician issues: GP care inadequate’. In some instances, important differences drove these groups of factors. For example, in the rural district ‘Systems issues: Community based services missing or inadequate or not referred to’ was largely driven by social and welfare support services missing/inadequate/not referred to, whereas in the metropolitan district it was largely driven by community nursing, allied health, care coordination or integrated care services missing/inadequate/not referred to. Analyses revealed the complexity of system, clinician and patient factors contributing to each admission. Admissions for COPD (rural) and CHF (metropolitan) admissions showed greatest complexity. Discussion and conclusion: These findings suggest preventability of individual admissions is complex and context specific. There is no single, simple solution likely to reduce PPH. Rather, an approach addressing multiple factors is required. This need for comprehensiveness may explain why many programs seeking to reduce PPH have been unsuccessful.

Suggested Citation

  • Jo Longman & Jennifer Johnston & Dan Ewald & Adrian Gilliland & Michael Burke & Tabeth Mutonga & Megan Passey, 2021. "What could prevent chronic condition admissions assessed as preventable in rural and metropolitan contexts? An analysis of clinicians’ perspectives from the DaPPHne study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-21, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0244313
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244313
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244313
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244313&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0244313?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrew Ridge & Gregory M. Peterson & Rosie Nash, 2022. "Risk Factors Associated with Preventable Hospitalisation among Rural Community-Dwelling Patients: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-15, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0244313. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.