Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Globalization and Health 1/2022

Open Access 01.12.2022 | Review

Strategies for utilisation management of hospital services: a systematic review of interventions

verfasst von: Leila Doshmangir, Roghayeh Khabiri, Hossein Jabbari, Morteza Arab-Zozani, Edris Kakemam, Vladimir Sergeevich Gordeev

Erschienen in: Globalization and Health | Ausgabe 1/2022

Abstract

Background

To achieve efficiency and high quality in health systems, the appropriate use of hospital services is essential. We identified the initiatives intended to manage adult hospital services and reduce unnecessary hospital use among the general adult population.

Methods

We systematically reviewed studies published in English using five databases (PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, Web of Science, and MEDLINE via Ovid). We only included studies that evaluated interventions aiming to reduce the use of hospital services or emergency department, frequency of hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, or the use of diagnostic tests in a general adult population. Studies reporting no relevant outcomes or focusing on a specific patient population or children were excluded.

Results

In total, 64 articles were included in the systematic review. Nine utilisation management methods were identified: care plan, case management, care coordination, utilisation review, clinical information system, physician profiling, consultation, education, and discharge planning. Primary case management was shown to effectively reduce emergency department use. Care coordination reduced 30-day post-discharge hospital readmission or emergency department visit rates. The pre-admission review program decreased elective admissions. The physician profiling, concurrent review, and discharge planning effectively reduced the length of hospital stay. Twenty three studies that evaluated costs, reported cost savings in the hospitals.

Conclusions

Utilisation management interventions can decrease hospital use by improving the use of community-based health services and improving the quality of care by providing appropriate care at the right time and at the right level of care.
Hinweise

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
ED
Emergency Department ED
LOS
Length of Hospital Stay
NCBA
Non-Controlled Before-and-After

Background

Hospitals provide a wide range of services necessary to meet the increasing demand for health care services and are an integral component of any health delivery system. However, inappropriate utilisation of high-cost but unnecessary or ineffective tests and medications in hospitals remains a significant challenge in many health systems [1]. Several studies documented improper hospital service use, which can be defined as “a hospital admission to provide care that could have been given in a less complex healthcare environment and at a lower cost” [2]. For example, it was previously shown that up to one-third of days of care [35] and diagnostic tests [6, 7], and one-fifth of all hospital admissions [8] could be inappropriate or unnecessary, negatively impacting patients’ physical and mental well-being, and driving up overall health care costs. Hence, eliminating inappropriate utilisation and waste is essential given the existing shortage of financial and human resources.
Advances in medical technology and, consequently, aggressive marketing to health care providers, direct-to-consumer advertising, political pressure from advocacy organisations, defensive medical decision making, fragmentation and discontinuity of care within and between health and social sectors - all can become the cause of healthcare overutilisation [9, 10]. Cost containment strategies can limit healthcare-related expenditure by eliminating inappropriate use of health care services while ensuring the continuous improvement of the quality of care. For example, one could consider controlling demand or supply for care, altering provision structures or hospital performance, cost-sharing, managed care, reference pricing, and generic substitution [11]. Another strategy is fostering hospital mergers and networks that may speed up restructuring through economies of scale at relatively small hospital sizes. However, creating a dominant position in the local hospital market may have an anticompetitive effect [12].
With the rising demand for healthcare services, hospitals can apply innovative methods to increase their efficiency [4]. This can be achieved by strengthening operational efficiency and targeting more significant healthcare expenditure cases. A range of measures can be used for this purpose: reducing duplication of services, decreasing the use of expensive inputs, decreasing the length of stay for inpatient care, reducing the number of long-stay beds, and reducing medical errors [1315]. Another approach would be implementing measures that could rebalance services provision across the health system, improve allocative efficiency, and centralise administrative functions. Such measures could include shifting the provision of care from the hospital into the community, improving care coordination, strengthening preventative care, increasing the use of day surgeries, providing appropriate levels of acute care at home (hospital at home), and facilitating the discharge of patients who have to stay in hospitals longer [16, 17]. One could also consider implementing initiatives that lower management expenses and enhance administrative efficiency, such as simplifying managerial procedures; introducing uniform standards, distribution strategies and the availability of real-time consumer and provider information; improving electronic mechanisms of lodging, processing, and reimbursement of payments and claims; and outsourcing member management systems and other back-office services [18, 19].
Most importantly, besides the cost-saving and improving operational, allocative, and administrative efficiency, reducing inappropriate utilisation could eliminate potential iatrogenic effects of unnecessary services while improving healthcare quality. However, previous studies primarily focused on evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in reducing a specific service, while studies that would provide a clear overview of the utilisation management strategies for adult hospital services are still lacking. Hence, our study aimed to identify the initiatives intended to manage adult hospital services and reduce unnecessary hospital use among the general adult population.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of published studies investigating initiatives intended to manage adult hospital services and reduce unnecessary hospital use among the general adult population.

Inclusion criteria

Studies were included if they reported using intervention in a general population aimed to reduce relevant primary outcomes (i.e., hospital services and/or emergency department (ED) use, frequency of hospital admissions, LOS, and use of diagnostic tests) compared to care as usual or different intervention. There were no time restrictions, but the publication language was restricted to English only.

Exclusion criteria

We excluded studies that targeted adult patient populations only with a specific medical condition (e.g., diabetes, asthma, cardiac failure, or cancer) or children to increase homogeneity and comparability between studies.

Search strategy

Five bibliographic databases (PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid/Medline) were searched until March 2020. To capture a broad range of primary outcomes, in addition to utilisation management and utilisation review, we included the following search terms: concurrent review, prospective review, retrospective review, pre-admission review, pre-admission review, pre-certification, pre-admission certification, pre-admission certification, pre-admission authorisation, pre-admission authorisation, pre-admission testing, pre-admission testing, prior authorisation, same-day admission, physician profiling, provider profiling, physician financial incentives, demand management, case management, discharge planning, second surgical opinions, second opinions, step therapy, therapeutic substitution, closed formulary, utilisation. We additionally searched the references of included studies for other potentially essential studies.

Study selection, data extraction, and synthesis

Results from the bibliographic databases were merged, and duplicates removed. Two reviewers (LD and RKh) independently screened the search results by title, abstract and performed a full-text review. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus with a third reviewer (HJ). We extracted the following information from the studies included in the review: type of intervention, study design, details of the intervention, and effects on primary outcomes (hospital services and ED use, admissions, LOS, use of diagnostic tests) and secondary outcomes (readmissions and costs). This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [20].

Assessment of the methodological quality

We used an adapted version of the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies (developed by the Effective Public Health Practice Project [21] to assess the methodological quality of the included studies (Appendix). The tool contains 19 items in eight key domains: (1) study design; (2) blinding; (3) representativeness in the sense of selection bias; (4) representativeness in the sense of withdrawals/drop-outs; (5) confounders; (6) data collection; (7) data analysis; and (8) reporting. Studies can have between six and eight component ratings, with each component score ranging from 1 (low risk of bias; high methodological quality) to 3 (high risk of bias; low methodological quality). An overall rating for each study was determined based on the component ratings. For example, if eight ratings have been given, a rating of ‘strong’ was attributed to those with no weak ratings and at least five strong ratings, ‘moderate’ to those with one weak rating or fewer than five strong ratings, and ‘weak’ attributed to those with two or more weak ratings. To minimise the risk of bias, assessments were completed independently by two reviewers (LD and EK). The ratings for each of the eight domains and the total rating were compared, and a consensus was reached on a final rating for each included article.

Data Analysis

Descriptive analyses were used to describe all studies that met the inclusion criteria, focusing on study design, participants, interventions and outcomes.

Results

The results of the screening process are shown in Fig. 1. After removing duplicates, 2261 papers were screened by title and abstract for possible inclusion in the review. The full text of 264 articles was obtained and assessed for eligibility. Of them, 56 selected papers were eligible for review. After screening references of included papers, we identified additional nine papers. Sixty four studies [2285] met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final review.

Characteristics of the selected studies

Included studies were published between 1982 and 2020, conducted mostly in the USA (n = 34) [2224, 2932, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 47, 49, 56, 57, 60, 63, 65, 6771, 7375, 77, 78, 81, 82, 84, 85], Canada (n = 4) [26, 35, 55, 61], Australia (n = 4) [38, 41, 59, 83], UK (n = 3) [36, 64, 72], Sweden (n = 3) [62, 66, 76], and one each in the Netherlands [52], Korea [44], China [53], Taiwan [27], Singapore [54], and Bahrain [34]. All studies focused on the general adult population; however, some focused on specific broader subgroups with psychiatric problems [29, 45, 54, 83], comorbid conditions [49, 77], psychosocial problems (e.g., problems with housing, medical care, substance abuse, mental health disorders, or financial entitlements) [70], uninsured [30, 31, 43, 68], patients with chronic medical conditions [27, 46, 49, 61, 67], or older patients [41, 43, 47, 49, 64, 66, 67, 76]. The duration of the study follow-up ranged from one month to seven years (Table 1).
Table 1
Study characteristics
Author (Year) Country
Design
Health care setting
Type of intervention
Control
Health Professionals involved in an intervention
Period, months
Number of Participants
Sandberg et al. [66]
(2015) Sweden
RCT
Community
Case management consisted of assessment, care coordination, providing general information, specific information and safety and monthly home visiting
Usual care
Nurse case managers, physiotherapists, physicians
12 F/U
Control: 73
Exposed: 80
Haldiman et al. [40]
(2014) the United States
Cross-sectional
Hospital
Prospective review of requests for fresh –frozen plasma and platelets using guidelines and pathologists as consultants
Before review
Blood bank staff, pathologist, ordering physician
48 F/U
NR
Goodnough et al. [37]
(2014) the United States
NCBA
Hospital
Concurrent review using a real-time clinical decision support system (CDSS) consisted of interruptive best practice alerts (BPAs) at the time of physician order entry (POE)
CDSS
Physicians
22 before and 30 F/U
NR
Joo [46] (2014) the United States
longitudinal
Community
Case management comprises assessment, care plans, care services in homes, clinic settings or telephone consults, evaluation
No Case Management
Nurse case managers
Up to 24 F/U
Control: -
Exposed: 252
Buckley et al. [24]
(2013) the United States
NCBA
Medical institution
Drug-utilization management program using evidence-based guidelines and clinical pharmacists
Pre-Implementation of Drug-Utilization Review
Clinical pharmacists, physicians, nurses, hospital administrators
6 before and 6 F/U
Control: 496
Exposed: 300
Reinius et al. [62]
(2013) Sweden
RCT
Hospital
Case management using a personalised programme, telephone contact
Usual care
Nurses
12 F/U
Control: 57
Exposed: 211
Crane et al. [30]
(2012) the United States
CBA
Hospital
Case management comprises drop-in group visits, telehealth line and life skills training
Before Case Management
Family physician, nurse care manager, behavioural health professional
12 before and 12 F/U
Control group: 36 Exposed: 340020
Roland et al. [64]
(2012) the United Kingdom
Case-control
From hospital to community
Case management focused on integrated care, delivery system redesign, improved clinical information systems
No Case Management
Case managers, GPs, community nurses, social workers
6 before 6 F/U
Control group:
17,311 Exposed: 3646
Koehler et al. [49]
(2009) the United States
RCT
Hospital
Care coordination using supplemental care bundle consists of medication counselling, reconciliation by a clinical pharmacist, patient education, enhanced discharge planning, and phone follow-up
Usual care
Care coordinator, pharmacist
2 F/U
Control: 21
Exposed: 20
Schraeder et al. [67]
(2008) the United States
Quasi-experimental
Primary care
Case management emphasises collaboration between physicians, nurses and patients, risk identification, comprehensive assessment, collaborative planning, health monitoring, patient education and transitional care
Usual care
Nurse case managers, primary care physicians
36 F/U
Control: 277
Exposed: 400
Holsinger et al. [42]
(2008) the United States
NCBA
Hospitals
Collaborative model of learning, a “trial-and-learn” approach to quality improvement, including Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles to test and implement changes
Before model
Physicians, medical staff, representatives from quality improvement, utilisation review or case management, billing, compliance, and medical records departments
19 before and 14 F/U
54 hospitals-
Sweeney et al. [77]
(2007) the United States
Prospective cohort
HMO
Patient-centred management involves on-site assessment, education, home visits, frequent contact, and goal-oriented care plans
Usual case management
Care managers, team managers, nurses, physicians
3 to 18 F/U
Control: 398
Exposed: 358
Phillips et al. [59]
(2006) Australia
NCBA
ED
Case management includes psychosocial evaluation, access to health care practitioners
Before Case Management
Nurses, allied health professionals, social workers, psychiatrists, primary care provider
12 before and 12 F/U
Control: 60
Exposed: 60
Sledge et al. [73]
(2006) the United States
RCT
Primary care
services
Case Management, including comprehensive medical and psychosocial assessment, care planning, follow-up, care coordination, self-management, counselling, telehealth line, home visiting
Usual care
Nurse case manager, social worker, psychiatrist, internist, primary care provider
12 F/U
Control: 49
Exposed: 47
Mahendran et al. [54] (2006) Singapore
NCBA
From hospital to community
Case Management includes care planning, care coordination, continuity of care, patient education, referral, counselling, telephone contacts, home visiting, assessment, evaluation, and supportive therapy
No Case Management
Psychiatric nurses were recruited as psychiatric case managers
12 F/U
Control: -
Exposed: 227
Zemencuk et al. [85]
(2006) the United States
CBA
Hospital
Physician profiling
No profiling
physicians
12 before and 12 F/U
Control: 6 hospitals Exposed:1 hospital
Latour et al. [52]
(2006) the Netherlands
RCT
From hospital to community
Case management includes home visiting after discharge, assessment, set care plan consisting of psychosocial support, referral, and telephone follow up
Usual care
A nurse case manager, medical supervisor, general practitioner
6 F/U
Control: 69
Exposed: 78
Hegney et al. [41] (2006) Australia
NCBA
Hospital
Discharge planning using a risk screening tool
Before intervention
Specialist community nurse
9 before vs 9 F/U
Control: -
Exposed: 2139
Horwitz et al. [43] (2005) the United States
RCT
Hospital
Case Management including referral to PCP, telephone or mail contacts, home visiting
Usual care
Case managers
6 F/U
Control:109
Exposed: 121
Control:51
Exposed: 59
Leung et al. [53] (2004) China
RCT
Community
Case Management includes regular monitoring of subjects’ health status, telehealth line, home visiting, community-based supportive services
Usual service
A nurse case manager, case geriatricians
12 F/U
Control: 47
Exposed: 45
Cox et al. [29] (2003) the United States
NCBA
Medical Center
Case management emphasises on the management of personal resources, medication compliance and therapeutic relationships
Before Case Management
Psychiatrists, nurses, psychologists, social worker
12 to 84 F/U
Control: -
Exposed: 185
Hwang et al. [44] (2002) Korea
Time series
Hospital
POE system
Pre- Physician’s order entry
Physicians
3 before and 6 F/U
Control: 73
Exposed: 38
Fateha [34] (2002)
Bahrain
Time series
Hospital
Concurrent Review
Before review
Medical staff
96 F/U
Ferrazzi et al. [35] (2001) Canada
NCBA
Community
Advanced life support drug treatment is given by ambulance attendants
Before the program
Ambulance attendants
18 before vs 18 F/U
Control: 215
Exposed: 191
Okinet al [57]. (2000) the United States
NCBA
Hospital
Case Management includes services coordination, individual and group supportive therapy, housing arrangement, financial entitlements, referral to PCP, substance abuse referral, community services, home visiting
Before Case Management
Psychiatric social worker, case manager
12 before and 12 F/U
Control: -
Exposed: 53
Bates et al. [22] (1999) the United States
RCT
Hospital
Computerised physician order entry is given a reminder to the physician
No reminder
Physicians
4 F/U
Control: 5886
Exposed: 5700
Wickizer et al. [82] (1998) the United States
Retrospective
analysis
Hospital
Utilisation management strategies including: Pre-admission review, concurrent review
Before Utilisation management
Nurse reviewers, physician advisers
60
49,654
Spillane et al. [74] (1997) United States
RCT
Hospital
Case management includes individualised care plans, psychosocial evaluation, care coordination
Usual care
ED physician, social worker, psychiatrist, ED nurse practitioner
12 before and 12 F/U
Control: 25
Exposed: 27
Bree et al. [23] (1996) the United States
RCT
Hospital
Pre-certification includes mandatory radiology consultation; each radiology examination requires approval by the attending radiologist before it is performed
No Pre-certification
Attending radiology consultant, radiology clerical personnel
12 F/U
Control: 1178
Exposed: 1022
Shea et al. [69]
(1995) the United States
RCT
Hospital
Clinical information systems include: computer-generated informational messages directed to physicians
No message
Physicians
23 F/U
Control: 6990 Exposed: 7109
Cardiff et al. [26]
(1995) Canada
Time-series
Hospitals
Utilisation management strategy includes identifying patients who did not need to be in acute care beds, as defined by the ISD-A explicit criteria and modifying the level of care for such patients
Before Utilisation management program
Nurse reviewers, physicians
12 before and 12 F/U
Control: Hospital C: 281
Hospital D: 312
Exposed: Hospital A: 600 Hospital B: 597
Styrborn [76] (1995) Sweden
Multicenter controlled trial
From hospital to community
Discharge Planning comprised: patient assessment, development of discharge plan, implementation in the form of provision of services, including patient/family education and service referrals, follow up/ evaluation
Ordinary discharge routines
Consultant geriatrician, nurse
3 F/U
Control: Hospital B: 166
Hospital C: 190
Exposed: Hospital A: 180
Rosenberg et al. [65] (1995) the United States
Case-control
Hospital
Utilisation review, second opinion, discharge planning, case management
Sham review
Nurses, physicians
8 F/U
Control: 3743 Exposed: 3702
Jambunathan et al. [45] (1995) the United States
Cross-sectional
Outpatient clinic
Case management including biopsychosocial assessment, care planning, care delivery, care coordination
Before Case Management
Nurses
18 F/U
Control: -Exposed: 21
Williams et al. [83]
(1994) Australia
Cross-sectional
Hospital
Drug utilisation review
No review
Drug use review panel
Patient admission to discharge
Control: - Exposed: 75
Wickizer [81] (1992) the United States
Retrospective analysis
Hospital
Utilisation Review consists of pre-admission authorisation and concurrent review
No Review
Registered nurses, physician advisors, medical personnel
36 F/U
Control: - Exposed: 1844
Woodside et al. [84]
(1991) the United States
Case-control
Hospital
Utilisation management strategies including concurrent review, consultation, discharge planning, care coordination
No Utilisation management
Care coordinator, physician, nurses
3 F/U
Control: 191 Exposed: 73
Silver et al .[71]
(1992) the United States
Cross-sectional
Hospital
Prospective review using guidelines
No review
Transfusion service technical personnel, physicians
12 F/U
Control: -Exposed: 543
Fowkes et al. [36]
(1986) the United Kingdom
Multicenter controlled trial
Hospitals
Appointment of a utilisation review committee, informational feedback given to physicians, the introduction of a new chest X-ray request form, concurrent review
No review
Physicians, clerical staff
12 F/U
44,632
Echols et al. [32]
(1984) the United States
NCBA
Hospital
Drug utilisation Review using an antibiotic order form
Before the introduction of the order form
Physicians
25 F/U
NR
Restuccia [63]
(1982) the United States
Multicenter controlled trial
Hospitals
Utilisation review consists of providing concurrent feedback to physicians
No feedback
Nurses review coordinators, physicians
2 F/U
Control: hospital D: 51
Exposed: hospital A: 145
hospital B:68
hospital C: 60
Murphy [56] (2014) the United States
NCBA
Hospital
Case management includes multidisciplinary ED care coordination, individualised ED care guidelines, and information system
Before ED-care-coordination program
Physicians, nurses, mental health and substance abuse professionals, ED nurse managers, a pharmacist, a social worker, a chaplain
12 before and 12 F/U
Control: 65
Exposed: 65
Chiang et al. [27] (2014)
Taiwan
NCBA
Hospital
Case management using dynamic, internet-mediated, team-based support led by emergency physicians
Before Case Management
ED physicians, primary care physicians, psychiatrists, social workers, and pharmacologists
6 before and 6 F/U
Control: -
Exposed: 14
Pillow et al. [60] (2013)
the United States
NCBA
Hospital
Care plans include social work assessment, directives to call pain team for the development of pain contract, radiologic studies, out-patient referral for speciality clinics, urinary toxicology studies, managed care referral, and psychiatric assessment
Before CP
Social workers, case managers, physicians
6 before and 11 F/Uphil
Control: -
Exposed: 50
Dehaven et al .[31]
(2012) the United States
Quasi-experimental
From hospital to community
A community-based partnership includes improving access to a primary care provider through in-person or telephone access to the community health worker, referral
Usual care
Primary care providers, hospital-based coordinators, community health worker
12 F/U
Control: 309
Exposed: 265
Tadros et al .[78]
(2012) the United States
NCBA
EMS
Case management includes coordination of treatment and social services, in-person contact, EMS interface, referrals, phone calls, transports
Before Case Management
Primary care physicians, social workers, case managers and adult protective services personnel
16 before and 15 F/U
Control: -
Exposed: 51
Shah et al .[68]
(2011) the United
States
CBA
Primary care
services
Care management includes access to medical and social resources, scheduling primary care appointments, following up on referrals, arranging for support services, e.g., housing, care transitions while in hospital, care navigation and care coordination between specialists and primary care providers
Before Case Management
Case managers, Primary care providers
12 before and 3 to 12 F/U
Control: 160
Exposed: 98
Stokes-Buzzelli S et al. [75] (2010) the United States
NCBA
Hospital
Health Information Technologies consist of identifying the most frequently presenting patients and creating individualised care plans for those patients and access to care plans through electronic medical records
No HIT
ED attending, ED medical social worker, ED mental health social worker, ED psychologist, ED resident, ED clinical nurse specialists
Same pre-and post-intervention time for each patient but varied between patients from 3 to 23
Control: -
Exposed: 36
Grimmer-Somers et al. [38] (2010) Australia
NCBA
Community
Individualised care plan including health assessment, social support, problem-solving, empowerment, education, goal setting and mentoring
Before program
Social workers, nurses
12 before and 12 F/U
Control: -Exposed: 37
Grover et al. [39] (2010) the United States
NCBA
Hospital
Case management using patient care plans consisted of referral to PCP, limiting narcotic use, pain management, chemical dependency behavioural health evaluation, social services
Before Case Management
Physicians, nurses, social service providers, pain management clinicians, specialists in behavioural health
6 before and 6 F/U
Control: 96
Exposed: 96
Skinner et al. [72]
(2009) the United Kingdom
CBA
Hospital
Case management includes evaluation, individualised care plan, referrals to other services, key contact, close observation
Before Case Management
ED consultant, ED specialist registrar, psychiatric nurse specialist, social workers, housing officers
6 before vs 6 F/U
Control: 21
Exposed: 36
Shumway et al. [70] (2008) the United States
RCT
Hospital
Case management
including individual
assessment, crisis intervention, individual and group supportive therapy, arrangement of stable housing and financial entitlements, linkage to medical care providers, referral to substance abuse services, ongoing assertive community outreach
Usual care
Psychiatric social workers, nurse practitioners, primary care physicians, psychiatrist
24 F/U
Control: 85
Exposed: 167
Pope et al. [61] (2000) Canada
NCBA
Hospital
Case management includes individualised care plan, limiting narcotics and benzodiazepines prescriptions and laboratory tests requested in ED, referral to PCP, pain program, addiction counselling, communicating care plans with other EDs, supportive therapy, arrangement of food services
Before Case management
Social workers, ED medical director, director of continuous quality improvement, patient care manager, psychiatric nurse, clinical nurse specialist, family physicians, community care providers
12 before and 12 F/U
Control: 24
Exposed: 24
Moher et al. [55] (1992) Canada
RCT
Clinical teaching units
Discharge planning based on individual patient needs
Standard medical care
Nurse
4 F/U
Control: 131
Exposed: 136
Kennedy et al. [47] (1987) the United States
RCT
Hospital
Discharge Planning is based on individual patient needs, emphasising communication with the patient and family
Care not described
Nurses
1 F/U
Control: 41
Exposed: 39
Kurant et al. [51] (2018)
the United States
Not stated
Hospital
Laboratory-based utilisation management programs, including electronic health record (EHR) laboratory orders database
Usual service
Not applicable
8 months
160,000 EHR laboratory orders
Copeland et al. [28]
(2017) the United States
NCBA
Hospital
Modelling of collective and individual oncologist per patient imaging counts
Before model
 
12 months
4605 patients
Pena et al. [58]
(2014) the United States
NCBA
Hospital
Blood management program includes Improving communications and transfusion guidelines, Benchmarking using the issue-to-transfusion ratio and audits and gatekeeping of selected blood products
Before the Blood management program
The staff of the laboratory of the Blood Transfusion Service
36 months
All of the transfused components at MGH from 2010 to 2012
Weilburg et al. [80]
(2017) the United States
Retrospective cohort
Hospital
Analysis of high-cost imaging utilisation in a stable cohort of patients cared for by PCPs during a 7-year period
Statewide high-cost imaging use data from a major private payer on the basis of the same claim set
Primary care physicians &
speciality care physicians
84 months
109,823 patients
Konger et al .[50]
(2016) the United States
NCBA
Hospital
Reductions in unnecessary clinical laboratory testing by using LES
pre-LES test volume
Pathologists
36 months
14,359 Exclusion Requests
El-Othmani et al. [33]
(2019) the United States
Retrospective analyse
Hospital
The Joint Utilization Management Program
Before the Joint Utilization Management Program
Physicians, post-acute care providers, and inpatient interdisciplinary teams
12 before and 12 F/U
683 JUMP patient
Kim & Lee [48] (2020)
Korea
Not stated
Medical Aid Beneficiaries
Case Management
Before Case Management
The case manager, a registered nurse or social worker,
12 Months
1741 case management clients
Wasfy et al. [79] (2019)
the United States
Ret rospective cohort
Hospital
Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program
Pre-law trends
Not applicable
36 Months
3,038,740 total index hospital stays
Calsolaro et al. [25] (2019)
Italy
Ret rospective analyse
Hospital
Potentially Preventable Readmission Grouping
Compering stand-alone admissions, index admissions and potentially preventable read
missions
Geriatricians
30 days
1263 stand-alone admissions, 171 index admissions
Notes: RCT Randomised controlled trial, ED Emergency Department, CM Case Management, NCBA Non-controlled before-and-after studies, LES Laboratory expert system, HIT Health Information Technologies, EMS Emergency medical services, POE Physician’s order entry, CDSS Before Clinical Decision Support System, HMO Health maintenance organisation
Fourteen studies (21.9%) were randomized controlled trials [22, 23, 43, 47, 49, 52, 53, 55, 62, 66, 69, 70, 73, 74], three were multicenter research trials [36, 63, 76], two were quasi-experimental studies [31, 67], four were controlled before-and-after studies [30, 68, 72, 85], twenty-one studies (32.8%) were non-controlled before-and-after studies (NCBA) [24, 2729, 32, 35, 3739, 41, 42, 50, 54, 5661, 75, 78], three were time-series studies [26, 34, 44], three were case-control studies [64, 65, 84], one was a prospective cohort study [77], one was longitudinal study, six were retrospective cohort studies [25, 33, 7982], and four were cross-sectional studies [40, 45, 71, 83]. While, in two studies were not stated type of design [48, 51]. Fourty studies (59.7%) can be categorized as assessing interventions targeted at the patient journey during hospital stay or medical center-based interventions [2224, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 37, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 49, 54, 56, 57, 5963, 65, 69, 70, 72, 74, 75, 78, 8183, 85]; four evaluated interventions aimed at discharge [41, 47, 55, 76], Not; and 13 examined community-based interventions [31, 35, 38, 43, 46, 52, 53, 64, 6668, 73, 77].

Methodological quality assessment

In the overall assessment, the methodological quality of only one reviewed study (1.5%) was rated as ‘strong’, while seven (11%) and 56 (87.5%) articles were rated as ‘moderate’ and ‘weak’, respectively (Appendix). In terms of study design, 21 studies (32.8%) were rated as ‘strong’. The remaining 13 studies (20.3%) scored ‘moderate’ and 30 studies (46.9%) scored ‘weak’. We were able to rate 39 studies for representativeness relating to withdrawals and drop-outs: 25 (64.1%) studies rated as ‘weak’, four (10.3%) as ‘moderate’, and ten (25.6) as ‘strong’. With respect to confounders, 11 (17.2%) studies were rated as ‘strong’, six (9.4%) as ‘moderate’, and 47 (73.4%) as ‘weak’. There were 23 studies (35.9%) rated as ‘weak’ for their data collection because the authors did not provide sufficient information on the validity or reliability of their collection methods. There were 37 papers (57.8%) rated as ‘moderate’ and four papers (6.3%) rated as ‘strong’. Based on the data analysis of each reviewed study, 36 (56.3%) of the reviewed studies were rated as ‘strong’, while 12 (18.8%) and 16 (25.0%) were rated as ‘moderate’ and ‘weak’, respectively. The reporting quality of the reviewed articles was also analysed. Out of the 64 articles included, 36 studies (56.3%) were rated as ‘strong’, 21 studies (32.8%) and seven studies (10.9%) were rated as ‘moderate’ and ‘weak’, respectively.

Nine broad utilisation management methods

We identified nine broad utilisation management methods: care plan, case management, care coordination, utilisation review, clinical information system, physician profiling, consultation, education, and discharge planning. The findings related to these nine methods are described below in Table 2, using sub-categories of the following main types of interventions: non-organisational interventions aiming to reduce hospital utilisation, organisational interventions to reduce hospital utilisation, and interventions at the discharge stage of the patient journey.
Table 2
Reported measures and outcomes
Author
(Year)
Country
Type of intervention
Main Outcome Measure
Outcomes
Statistically significant
(P < .05)
Control
Intervention
Before
After
Difference
Before
After
Difference
 
Sandberg et al. [66] (2015) Sweden
Case management
No. of admissions, mean
0.62
0.48
 
0.48
0.49
 
No
LOS, mean
3.90
4.05
 
5.05
4.60
 
No
No. of ED visits leading to hospitalization, mean
0.36
0.42
 
0.39
0.34
 
No
No. of ED visits not leading to hospitalization, mean
0.22
0.37
 
0.15
0.08
 
Yes
Proportion of ED visits not leading to hospitalisation
16 (38.1%)
23 (46.7%)
 
12 (27.9%)
4 (17.4%)
 
Yes
No. of outpatient visits, mean
6.10
5.29
 
5.30
4.09
 
Yes
Haldiman et al. [40] (2014) the United States
Prospective review
No. of FFPs transfused per 1000 patients discharged per year
Y1: 66.7
Y4: 46.9
- 19.8 (−29.7%)
Yes
No. of platelets transfused per1000 patient discharged per year
Y1: 23.7
Y2: 18.7
-5 (−21.1%)
Yes
Annual cost savings
$130,000,000
NR
Goodnough et al. [37] (2014) the United States
Concurrent review
% of blood transfusions in patients whit HB levels exceeded 8 g/dl
57%
30%
 
Yes
Total RBC transfusions
 
− 7186
(−24%)
NR
Total plasma transfusions
−10%
NR
Total platelets transfusions
−12%
NR
All blood components
−19%
NR
Net savings
$1,616,750
NR
Joo [46] (2014) the United States
Case management
No. of Admissions
Y1: 0.62
Y2: 0.47
 
Yes
Total LOS
Y1: 3.05
Y2: 2.28
 
No
NO. of ED visits
Y1: 0.38
Y2: 0.36
 
No
Symptom control
B: 4.07
Y1: 4.19
Y2: 4.27
 
Yes
Quality of life
B: 3.89
Y1: 4.01
Y2: 4.03
 
Yes
Personal well-being
B: 4.09
Y1: 4.13
Y2: 4.14
 
No
Buckley et al. [24] (2013) the United States
Drug-utilisation management program
The proportion of patients prescribed epoetin
2.4%
1.6%
 
Yes
No. of patients inappropriately prescribed epoetin
184/496 (37.1%)
37/300 (12.3%)
 
Yes
Total no. of epoetin units administered
  
24,531,340
13,511,800
−45%
Yes
Total epoetin costs
$220,786 ($36,797/mo)
$121,606 ($20,268/mo)
−45%
Yes
% of total costs was attributed to inappropriate epoetin prescribing
36.8%
13%
 
Yes
Annual cost savings
$ 198,352 ($ 16,529/mo)
Yes
Reinius et al. [62]
(2013) Sweden
Case management
No. of ED visits
6.4
4.9
RRs 0.77; 95% CI 0.69-0.87
No. of admissions, mean
2.1
1.7
No
No. of hospital days per patient per year
16.9
7.0
−58%
Yes
No. of out-patient visits, mean
25.4
21.4
−15.7%
RRs 0.85; 95% CI 0.79–0.90
Costs per patient per year
€26,490
€11,417
−57%
Yes
Quality-of-life scores
Yes
Crane et al. [30]
(2012) the United States
Case management
No. of ED visits, median
6.96
5.04
−1.92
6.96
2.76
−4.2
Yes
Total ED and inpatient charges per patient per mon, mean
$1167
$230
-$937
Yes
Roland et al. [64] (2012) the United Kingdom
Case management
No. of emergency admissions
+ 9%
Yes
No. of elective admissions
−21%
Yes
No. of out-patient visits
−22%
Yes
Inpatient and out-patient costs
-£223
−9%
Yes
Koehler et al. [49] (2009) the United States
Care coordination
No. of 0-30 day post-discharge readmissions/ ED visits
8 (38%)
2 (10%)
 
Yes
No. of 31-60 day post-discharge readmissions/ED visits
1 (4.8%)
4 (20%)
 
No
Total post-discharge readmissions/ED visits at 60 days
9 (42.9%)
6 (30%)
 
No
Schraeder et al. [67] (2008) the United States
Case management
Admissions, %
53.8
51
No
Hospital bed days, mean
13.89
8.19
Yes
ED visits, mean
1.79
1.48
No
Readmissions
28.8%
19.2%
−34%
Yes
Cost of care per patient per mon, mean
$708
$1193
-$485
Yes
Adjusted cost of care per patient per mon (cost savings)
$106
No
Holsinger et al. [42] (2008) the United States
Collaborative model
1-day hospital stays
−19%
NR
Sweeney et al. [77] (2007) the United States
Patient-centred management
No. of admission, mean
1.9
1.2
−36.8%
Yes
Hospital days, mean
13.4
8.5
−36.6%
Yes
No. of ED visits, mean
1.5
1.0
−33.3%
No
Rehabilitation days, mean
5.8
3.7
−36.2%
No
Hospice days, mean
2.4
3.3
37.5%
No
Home care days, mean
30.9
36.8
26.6%
No
The overall cost per patient for 18 mon, mean
$ 68,341
$ 49,742
$ -18,599
(−27.2%)
NR
Phillips et al. [59]
(2006) Australia
Case management
Admissions, sum of the percentage
1104
931
 
No
No. of ED visits, mean
10.2
13.0
+ 2.8 (27.4%)
No P = 0.55
ED LOS, minutes, mean
297
300
+ 3
No
No. of ED overnight observation, mean
1.3
3.4
+ 2.1 (166%)
Yes
Housing stability score
3.6
4.1
0.5 (14%)
Yes
Primary care engagement score
2.6
3.1
0.5 (19%)
Yes
Community care engagement score
2.1
3.2
1.1 (52%)
Yes
Drug and alcohol use
68.3%
58.9%
 
No
Sledge et al. [73] (2006) the United States
Case management
No. of admissions, mean
2.0
1.7
−0.3
1.9
1.3
−0.6
No
No. of ED visits, mean
3.3
2.7
−0.6
2.0
1.5
−0.5
No
No. of clinic visits, mean
5.9
5.7
−0.2
6.4
7.9
+ 1.5
Yes
Total cost, mean
$17,721
$15,447
-$2274
$17,265
$16,291
-$974
No
SF-36 Mental Health Function Score
21.7
22
0.3
21.3
21.4
0.1
No
Overall patient satisfaction
7.24
6.7
−0.54
7.47
7.6
0.13
No
Mahendran et al. [54] (2006) Singapore
Case management
No. of readmissions
65
26
−39
Yes
No. of patients who defaulted follow-up appointments
All outpatient: 24%
CM patient: 11.9%
 
Yes
No. of days per admission, mean
15.6
4
−11.6
Yes
Zemencuk et al. [85] (2006) the United States
Physician profiling
LOS
− 0.32 day
Yes
Latour et al. [52]
(2006) the Netherlands
Case management
Readmission rate
11 (15.9%)
16 (20.6%)
No
Quality of life
No
Psychological functioning
No
Hegney et al. [41]
(2006) Australia
Discharge planning using risk screening tool
ED revisitation rate
21%
5%
−16%
Yes
Readmission rate
9 (10.2%)
7 (4.7%)
−2 (5.5%)
No
ALOS
6.17
5.37
−0.8
NR
Horwitz
et al. [43] (2005) the United States
Case management
No. of admission
7/109
(6.4%)
3/121 (2.5%)
 
No
No. of ED visits
32/109 (29.4%)
38/121 (31.4%)
 
No
Primary care contact in 60 days
15/109 (13.8%)
62/121 (51.2%)
 
Yes
Cost of an ED visit, mean
$330
$319
 
$330
$243
 
NR
Leung et al. [53] (2004) China
Case management
Total no. of admissions, mean
1.4
2.7
 
3.0
2.3
 
Yes
Total no. of hospital bed days, mean
6.8
10.7
 
12.9
9.6
 
Yes
Total no. of visits, mean
0.4
0.8
 
0.5
0.3
 
No
Total no. of outpatient visits, mean
6.7
6.9
 
9.0
8.3
 
Yes
Cox et al. (2003) [29] the United States
Case management
No. of admissions, mean
3.11
0.82
−2.29
Yes
Hospital days, mean
46.6
12.4
−34.2
Yes
Cost-saving per inpatient day
$ 166
Yes
Hwang et al. [44]
(2002) Korea
Physician’s order entry system
LOS, mean
11.4
8.2
−3.2
Yes
No. of daily orders
10.9
18.9
+ 8
Yes
No. of stat lab tests
3.3
1.8
−1.5
Yes
Fateha [34] (2002) Bahrain
Concurrent Review
LOS, mean
8.3
6.6
−1.7 (−20.5%)
Yes
Ferrazzi et al. [35] (2001) Canada
Advanced life support drug treatment given by ambulance attendants
Proportion of admissions
145 (67.4%)
102 (54.3%)
 
Yes
ED LOS, min, mean
-
206.9
220.9
−14
No
Ambulance scene time, min
12.3
14.2
 
Yes
Okin et al. [57] (2000) the United States
Case management
No. of ED visits, median
15
9
−6 (−40%)
Yes
No. of out-patient visits, median
2
4
 
Yes
No. of admissions, median
1
1
 
No
Medical inpatient days, median
5
2
 
No
ED costs, median
$4124
$2195
$-1938
Yes
Medical inpatient costs, median
$8330
$2786
$-1082
Yes
Medical out-patient costs, median
$476
$612
$94
No
Homelessness
35
15
−20 (−57%)
Yes
Alcohol use
37
29
−8 (−22%)
Yes
Drug use
27
20
−7 (−26%)
Yes
Linkage to primary care
+ 74%
Yes
Net cost savings
$132,726
NR
Bates et al. [22]
(1999) the United States
Computerised physician order entry
No. of clinical laboratory orders that were cancelled in response to reminders
Not applicable
300 of 437 (69%)
Yes
The proportion of the redundant tests that were performed
257 (51%)
117 (27%)
Yes
Annual lab cost savings
$35,000
NR
Wickizer et al. [82] (1998) the United States
Utilisation management strategies
No. of days approved
−50%
Yes
Spillane et al. [74] (1997) the United States
Case management
No. of ED visits, median
13
6
−7
14
7
−7
NO
Bree et al. [23]
(1996) the United States
Pre-certification
No. of examinations per admission, mean
4.4
4.4
No
LOS, mean
6.1
6.0
No
% of patients with one or more tests
88.7%
88%
No
Relative value units (RVUs), mean.
336.0
356.1
No
Adjusted RVUs
−10.2
−8.8
No
Shea et al. [69]
(1995) the United States
Clinical information system
Adjusted LOS, mean
0.012
−0.011
−2.3%
Yes
Cardiff et al. [26]
(1995) Canada
Utilisation management
Inappropriate admissions
C: 26 (18%)
D: 36 (23%)
C: 18 (13%)
D: 48 (30%)
A: 71 (24%) B: 78 (26%)
A: 88 (29%) B: 68 (23%)
Among hospitals in both time period: Yes
Adjusted inappropriate continued days of stay
C: 0.0656
D: 0.0617
C: 0.0665
D: 0.0906
A: 0.1597
B: 0.1224
A: 0.0770
B: 0.0918
B: Yes
A,C,D: No
30-day readmission (rate per 1000 discharge)
C: 105
D: 92
C: 96 D: 76
A: 83 B: 73
A: 71
B: 60
A,B,D: Yes
C:No
Styrborn [76]
(1995) Sweden
Discharge planning
Adjusted LOS
B: 10.5
C: 10.9
A: 9.6
A-(B + C): −1.1
No
No. of bed-blocking patients
B: 35
C: 35
A: 31
−4
NR
Waiting days/patient
B: 11.3
C: 18.0
A: 8.2
A-(B + C): −6.4
Yes
Charge days per patient
B: 6.2
C: 13.4
A: 4.2
A-(B + C): −5.6
Yes
Rosenberg et al. [65] (1995) the United States
Utilisation review, second opinion, discharge planning, case management
No. of out-patient procedure
913
789
−124
Yes
No. of inpatient procedure
452
466
14
No
No. of admission per 1000 patients
 
625.4
  
641.8
16.4
No
Adjusted LOS
5.9
6.1
0.2
No
Adjusted ALOS, mean
5.8
6.1
0.3
No
Jambunathan et al. [45] (1995) the United States
Case management
No. of case management visits/Adjusted LOS (r-value)
.6138
Yes
Williams et al. [83] (1994) Australia
Drug utilisation review
No. of patients using benzodiazepines
30 (40%)
15 (20%)
−15 (−20%)
Yes
No. of patients using potentially adverse side-effects drug combinations (%)
21 (28%)
7 (9.3%)
−14 (− 18.7%)
Yes
Wickizer [81]
(1992) the United States
Utilisation review
No. of admissions
−12%
Yes
Adjusted LOS
No
Hospital routine costs
−8%
Yes
Hospital ancillary costs
−9%
Yes
Total medical cost
− 6%
Yes
Cost savings per employee per year
$115
NR
Woodside et al. [84] (1991) the United States
Utilisation management strategies
Adjusted LOS
11.8
9.1
−23%
NR
Total costs, mean
$22,695
$19,042
−16%
NR
Silver et al. [71]
(1992) the United States
Prospective review
No. of orders cancelled
114 (21%)
NR
Medical costs
-$22,000
NR
Fowkes et al. [36]
(1986) the United Kingdom
Utilisation review
No. of X-ray tests per100 operations
29.4
13.3
−16.1
Yes
Echols et al. [32]
(1984) the United States
Drug utilisation review
No. of antibiotic treatment courses
−30%
Yes
No. of patients receiving any antibiotic
47%
30%
−17%
Yes
Restuccia [63]
(1982) the United States
Utilisation review
No. of inappropriate days, mean
D: 3.25
A: 2.59
B: 2.75
C: 3.25
A-D: −0.66
B-D: −0.5
C-D: 0
Yes
Adjusted LOS, mean
D: 14.59
A: 12.23
B: 13.81
C: 15.23
A-D: −2.36
B-D: −0.78
C-D: 0.64
Yes
Murphy [56] (2014) the United
States
Case management
No. of ED visits
7
2
−5
Yes
No. of out-patient visits
7
2
−5
Yes
Direct treatment costs
$2328
$1043
-$1285
Yes
Direct treatment cost per visit
$323
$235
-$88
Yes
Net income
-$608
-$177
$431
Yes
Chiang et al. [27]
(2014) Taiwan
Case management
No. of ED visits, mean
63
26
−37 (−58%)
Yes
Pillow et al. [60]
(2013) the United States
Care plans
No. of ED visits per year per patient
22.6
21.2
−1.4
Yes
No. of admissions per year per patient
7.3
6.8
−0.5
No
Dehaven et al. [31] (2012) the United States
Community-based partnership
No. of ED visits, mean
1.44
0.93
Yes
No. of hospital days, mean
1.07
0.37
Yes
Direct hospital costs, mean
$1188
$445.6
−62%
Yes
Indirect costs, mean
$692.1
$313.3
−55%
Yes
Tadros et al. [78]
(2012) the United States
Case management
No. of EMS visits, median
8
4
−4
Yes
Total no. of EMS visits
736
459
−37.6%
Yes
No. of ED visits, median
1
0
−1
No
Total no. of ED visits
199
143
−28.1%
No
No. of admissions, median
0
0
0
No
Total no. of admissions
33
30
−9.1%
No
LOS, median
0
0
0
No
LOS, days
122
88
−27.9%
No
EMS costs
$689,743
$468,394
−32.1%
Yes
Out-patient costs
$413,410
$360,779
−12.7
No
Inpatient costs
$687,306
$646,881
−5.9%
No
Total costs
$1,790,459
$1,476,053
-$314,406
(−17.6%)
NR
Shah et al. [68]
(2011) the United States
Care management
No. of ED visits per year, median
6.0
1.7
−3.9
Yes
No. of admissions, median
0.0
0.0
0.0
No
Unadjusted ED cost per patient per year, mean
$2545
$1874
-$671
(−26%)
Yes
Unadjusted admission cost per patient per year, mean
$ 20,298
$ 7053
-$ 13,245
(−65%)
Yes
Stokes-Buzzelli S et al. [75] (2010) the United States
Health Information Technologies
No. of ED visits, mean
67.4
50.5
−16.9
(−%25)
Yes
ED LOS, min
388
342
−46 (−%12)
No
Lab studies ordered, mean
1847
1328
−519 (−%28)
Yes
ED charges
$64,721
$49,208
−15,513
(−24%)
Yes
Total Emergency Department Contact Time, hours
443.7
270.6
− 173.1 or 7.21 days
(−39%)
Yes
Grimmer-
Somers et al. [38] (2010) Australia
Individualised care
plan
No. of ED visits
0.81
0.59
 
NR
No. of admissions
0.32
0.21
 
NR
LOS
−1.3
NR
Grover et al. [39]
(2010) the United States
Case management
No. of ED visits, mean
13.8
3.6
−74%
Yes
No. of CT images
153.6
61.2
−60%
Yes
Skinner et al. [72] (2009) the United Kingdom
Case management
No. of ED visits, median
12
6
−6
Yes
Total no. of ED visits
720
499
− 221 (−31%)
Yes
Shumway et al. [70] (2008) the United States
Case management
No. of ED visits, mean
5.2
2.0
 
3.6
0.9
 
Yes
No. of admissions, mean
0.9
0.3
 
0.8
0.3
 
No
Medical inpatient days, mean
3.4
1.7
 
3.4
1.3
 
No
No. of outpatient visits, mean
2.5
2.6
 
2.7
2.2
 
No
ED costs, mean
942
647
 
790
247
 
Yes
All hospital costs, mean
8423
3849
 
8508
4761
 
No
Homeless, n (%)
32 (80)
11 (33)
 
61 (76)
22 (32)
 
Yes
Problem alcohol use, n (%)
21 (53)
12 (30)
 
38 (48)
22 (28)
 
Yes
No. of health insurance (%)
31 (78)
17 (53)
 
59 (75)
30 (44)
 
Yes
No. of social security income (%)
29 (74)
18 (58)
 
63 (79)
26 (43)
 
Yes
Basic financial needs, mean
4.4
3.7
 
5.2
3.8
 
Yes
Psychiatric symptoms (total BSI score), mean
10.0
9.8
 
11.6
10.4
 
No
Pope et al. [61] (2000) Canada
Case management
No. of number of ED visits, median
26.5
6.5
−20
Yes
Total no. of ED visits
616
175
− 441 (−72%)
Yes
Moher et al. [55] (1992) Canada
Discharge planning
LOS, mean
9.4
7.43
−1.97
Yes
Readmission rate at 2 weeks
18 (14%)
22 (16%)
 
No
Kennedy et al. [47] (1987) the United States
Discharge planning
LOS, mean
9.7
7.8
−1.9
Yes
Readmission rate at 8 weeks
14 (34%)
11 (28%)
−6%
NR
Kurant et al .[51] (2018) the United States
Laboratory-based utilisation management programs
        
Copeland et al. [28] (2017) the United States
Modelling
Total imaging per patient
RRs 1.93; 95% CI 1.67–2.23
Pena et al .[58]
(2014) the United States
Blood management program, benchmarking
Total RBC transfusions
37,167
34,602
 
Yes
Total plasma transfusions
10,544
 
NR
Total platelets transfusions
8202
7844
 
NR
Total albumin transfusions
23,949
24,557
 
NR
Total IVIg transfusions
52,085
44,973
  
Weilburg et al. [80] (2017) the United States
Analysis of high-cost imaging utilisation
No. of high-cost imaging per year
0.43 examinations
0.34 examinations
- 21.3%
Yes
Overall laboratory utilisation
−9.4%
Yes
Inpatient stays
0.453
0.422
 
No
No. of departments visited
0.558
0.823
 
Yes
Konger et al. [50]
(2016) the United States
Reductions in unnecessary clinical laboratory testing
Total test volume per year
−11.18%
Yes
El-Othmani
et al. [33] (2019) the United States
Joint utilisation management program
LOS
9.27
6.2
 
4.22
3.04
  
The rate of 30 day readmission
21.05
23.50
 
9.94
8.0
 
Inpatient rehabilitation
15.79
5.88
 
5.9
3.08
 
Kim & Lee [48] (2020) Korea
Case Management
Inpatient days
30.5
10.6
     
Outpatient visits
128.3
104.7
     
Self-care ability
15.41
18.64
     
Wasfy et al. [79] (2019) the United States
Hospital Readmissions reduction Program
In-patient readmission
0.023
0.002
    
yes
Treat-and-discharge visit to emergency department
0.014
0.029
    
yes
Observation stay (not leading to inpatient readmission)
0.019
0.024
    
yes
Calsolaro et al. [25] (2019)
Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program
Potentially preventable read-missions (PPR)
       
LOS (median and range)
5 (4-6)
  
6 (2-14)
   

Prehospital advanced life support drug treatment

These interventions focused on access to primary care, medical and social resources. For example, two studies [31, 68] evaluated interventions that aimed to improve access to primary care. Studies suggest that improving access to primary care centres is associated with fewer ED visits [31, 68], fewer inpatient hospital days than controls [31], but report no difference in inpatient admissions between groups [68]. One retrospective cohort study examined the effect of prehospital advanced life support drug treatment in reducing subsequent hospital utilisation by the medical patients receiving such drugs [35]. There was a significant decrease in admissions in the drug intervention group driven by chest pain patients and improved prehospital field conditions for all chief complaints. Care plan and case management were the main interventions related to prehospital advanced life support drug treatment.
Two comparative cohort studies examined the impact of patient care plans on service utilisation [38, 77]. Sweeney et al. [77] compared patient-centred management to usual case management for patients who had a life-limiting diagnosis with multiple comorbid conditions. Among the patient-centered management, inpatient admissions reduced by 38%, inpatient hospital days by 36%, and emergency department visits by 30%. Grimmer-Somers et al. [38] found that a holistic community-based program using a care plan for frequent ED attendees had significant improvements in client health and decreased crisis emergency department and inpatient admissions.

Case management

Primary care case management

Case management is “a collaborative process that assesses, plans, implements, coordinates, monitors, and evaluates the options and services required to meet an individual’s health needs using communication and available resources to promote quality and cost-effective outcomes” [50]. Eight studies focused on using case management interventions based outside the hospital. Five studies reported a decrease in hospital utilisation [45, 46, 64, 66]. Three studies found no significant difference between groups in neither ED visits nor hospital admissions [43, 67, 73].

Hospital-based case management

Of 23 studies evaluating case management interventions, 12 focused on case management as an ED-initiated or medical centre-based intervention for frequent hospital utilisers. Six comparative cohort studies observed a decrease in the mean or the median number of ED visits than the controls [30, 72] or before the case management [27, 39, 57, 61]. One study reported an increase of 2.79 median ED visits post-intervention [59]. This study included primarily patients with substance abuse or psychiatric problems underlying the ED visits, suggesting case management may be less effective in reducing ED utilisation in this population. One RCT reported no significant difference in the median number of ED visits following CM [74]. In contrast, two RCTs reported a decrease in the number of ED visits [62, 70] and hospital days [64] among those in the intervention group. Two studies have examined changes in hospital admissions or LOS, found a significant decrease in the number of admissions [29], hospital readmissions [54] and LOS.

Care coordination

Two studies examined the impact of care coordination programs on ED visit rate amongst frequent ED users [49, 56]. The randomised controlled pilot study by Koehler et al .[49] found that hospital-based care coordination using extra care bundle comprising three interventions (medication counselling, enhanced discharge planning, and phone follow-up) targeting high-risk older people compared to usual care was successful in reducing 30-day post-discharge hospital readmission or emergency department visit rates. The comparative cohort study by Murphy et al. [56] implemented a multidiscipline ED-care coordination program using a regional hospital information system capable of sharing patients’ individualised care plans between ED providers. The study reported a significant decrease in ED visits 12-months following the intervention.

Utilisation Review

The utilisation review program consists of several different review activities: pre-admission authorisation (prospective review), concurrent review (during the patient stay), retrospective review (relying on medical records), prospective review. One study investigating a pre-admission review program found a decrease in hospital admissions by approximately 12% [81]. Of eight studies that examined the effect of concurrent review on the LOS, five studies found a decrease in hospital LOS [26, 34, 63, 82, 84]. Another study that examined the effect of utilisation review on patterns of health care use found that the referrals for a second opinion have reduced the number of procedures performed in the review group. However, there was no significant difference between the groups during the study period in terms of rates of admission to medical-surgical, substance abuse, or psychiatric units, average LOS, the percentage of those who received pre-admission testing, or the rates of use of home care following utilisation review activities [65].
A retrospective analysis of utilisation management programs has concluded that pre-admission review rarely denies requests for admission, and nearly one-third of patients approved by pre-admission review for inpatient care requested approval for continued stay through concurrent review [82]. One multicenter trial examined the effect of utilisation management strategies on the use of a radiological test [36]. There was a consistent reduction from 29.4 to 13.3 X-rays per 100 operations after introducing the new request form and concurrent review. Two studies that evaluated the effectiveness of a prospective review program in reducing blood component utilisation reported that the implementation by the blood bank staff of a prospective review of orders for blood products resulted in a significant decrease of 38.8% and 31.4% in the use of fresh frozen plasma and platelets, respectively [40], as well as a total reduction inpatient medical costs realised as a result of cancelled orders [71]. Due to the importance of drug utilisation, this type of utilisation review has been categorised as a primary intervention.

Drug utilisation review

Three studies focused on drug utilisation review interventions. One study reported a significant decrease in the number of antibiotic treatment courses and the percentage of patients receiving any antibiotic following implementing an antibiotic order form for all inpatient antibiotic orders in the hospital [32]. The second study reported a significant decrease from 40% to 20% of patients using benzodiazepines after drug utilisation review activities in an inpatient setting [83]. Another retrospective cohort study examined the effect of implementing a drug utilisation management program and evidence-based guidelines on the appropriate use of drugs and found that implementing a drug-utilisation management program using clinical pharmacists was associated with a decrease in inappropriate epoetin prescribing and significant cost savings [24].

Clinical information system

A clinical information system is a computer-based system encompassing clinical or health-related information, distinguished from administrative information systems by the requirement for data entry or data retrieval by clinicians at the point of care. Some areas addressed by clinical information systems are clinical decision support, electronic medical records, physician’s order entry, telemedicine, problem lists, summary reports, results review, nursing protocols and care plans, and alerts and reminders. Recently, interests have been focusing on medical errors with monitoring and managing variation in practice [86]. Electronic medical records and physician’s order entry systems, and clinical decision support are the primary interventions related to clinical information systems.

Electronic Medical Record

One before-after analysis of an intervention targeting ED frequent users reported that the use of health information technologies to identify the most frequently visiting patients and easy access to individualised care plans through the EMR to all healthcare providers resulted in a significant reduction in the number of ED visits, labs ordered, total ED contact time, and ED charges [75].

Physician’s order entry system

A physician’s order entry system is a subsystem of a hospital information system. One prospective time series study reported that the number of stat lab tests and overall LOS at six months after physician’s order entry implementation decreased significantly compared with the pre- physician’s order entry system period [44]. Using a randomised controlled design, Shea et al. [69] demonstrated that a computer-generated informational message directed to physicians as an intervention resulted in reduced LOS in an inpatient setting. According to Bates et al. [22], 69% of potentially redundant diagnostic tests were cancelled in response to reminders following the introduction of a clinical information system that included a physician’s order entry system.

Clinical decision support

A clinical decision support system is a computer-based application that analyses data and provides knowledge and person-specific information to aid physicians and other health providers in clinical decision making [87]. One study that evaluated real-time clinical decision support intervention observed improved blood utilisation. After implementing clinical decision support system, the percentage of patients transfused outside the guidelines decreased to 35% [37].

Physician profiling

Physician profiling is a cost-containment strategy whereby the patterns of health care provided by a practitioner or other provider (e.g., hospital) for the defined population are compared to other norms - profiles of other physicians or practice guidelines - based on practice [88]. A quasi-experimental study with control groups found that LOS at the profiled site decreased by an additional third of a day in the profiling year than at the non-profiled sites [85].

Consultation

The randomised controlled trials by Bree et al. [24] implemented mandatory radiology consultation whereby each radiology examination required prior approval. This intervention did not observe differences in inpatient imaging use following the mandatory radiology consultation.

Discharge planning

Discharge planning refers to developing a plan to treat the patient’s medical needs after leaving the inpatient department to contain costs and improve patient outcomes. Discharge planning should ensure that patients leave the hospital at an appropriate time in their care and that, with adequate notice, the provision of post-discharge services is organised [89]. We identified three studies that focused on interventions at the discharge stage of the patient journey [41, 47, 55]. All three studies that examined the effect of discharge planning on LOS in hospital and readmission rates compared with usual care found a decrease in hospital LOS for those allocated to discharge planning. There were lower readmission rates in the discharge planning group for older participants with a medical condition at three months of discharge [41, 47].

Early supported discharge

Discharge planning typically involves a greater degree of care provision and support following discharge than discharge planning interventions. Early supported discharge or early home-supported discharge may include discharge planning but aims specifically to accelerate discharge from the hospital with continued support in a community setting, typically at the same intensity that would have been provided had the patient remained in hospital. These interventions are usually provided by multidisciplinary teams, including doctors, nurses, and therapists. Still, the degree of coordination and whether they are driven by hospital outreach or community teams can vary [89].

Post-discharge case management

Two RCTs have examined the effectiveness of case management provided after patients are discharged from the hospital regarding the utilisation of hospital services by these patients. One study found a significant reduction in hospital admissions, bed-days and attendances at the out-patient department [53]. In contrast, the second study did not find significant differences between groups for readmission, care utilisation, quality of life, or psychological functioning [52].

Cost outcome

Of all included studies, 23 studies provided cost-related outcomes. Six studies reported savings after implementing utilisation review programs [24, 37, 40, 81, 84] or a computerised physician order entry system [22]. One study reported cost savings from reduced days of hospitalization [29]. Ten studies reported significantly reduced hospital charges [30, 31, 56, 62, 64, 67, 68, 77] or ED costs after the intervention [43, 75]. One randomised controlled trial of 96 patients observed a trend toward reduced total healthcare cost in the experimental group, but the difference was not statistically significant [73]. Two studies reported a mixed effect - one reported a significant decrease in ED and medical inpatient costs but no apparent change in the cost of medical out-patient, psychiatric inpatient, psychiatric emergency, or ambulance services [57]. The other found a significant decrease in ED costs. However, no difference was reported for inpatient services, psychiatric emergency services, out-patient services, physicians’ fees, or total hospital costs, with the cost of case management included [70]. Also, one study reported program costs with no assessment of net costs or savings [38].

Education

Developing education programs for patients, families and health care providers (i.e., nurses or physicians) is considered the primary intervention in many countries [49, 67, 77, 90]. The goal of the education programs is to provide health care providers with the principles of utilisation management.

Discussion

Our review identified nine utilisation management methods, including care plan, case management, care coordination, utilisation review, clinical information system, physician profiling, consultation, education, and discharge planning. Of all interventions reported in the reviewed studies, case management strategy was the most frequently examined. Disease management is considered an effective strategy for dealing with frequent hospital users with specific diseases (e.g., congestive heart failure or diabetes). Whereas disease management focuses on particular illnesses, case management is focused on optimising multidisciplinary treatment. We identified several models of case management, such as brokerage [54], assertive community treatment [46], intensive case management [29, 39], clinical case management [57, 70], and different case management models (i.e., strengths-based case management, generalist case management, rehabilitation).
Our findings suggest that interventions aimed to increase primary care accessibility and case management effectively reduce ED visitation [31]. Though mostly uneven in methodological rigour, studies indicate that pre-admission review for hospitalisation is highly effective in reducing hospital admissions. The implementation of utilisation management interventions increased out-patient visits, possibly reflecting the link of frequent hospital users to other services. Overall, studies that focused on interventions during the patient stay in the hospital (e.g., concurrent review) and interventions at the discharge stage of the patient journey (e.g., discharge planning) effectively reduce the LOS. However, the limited evidence showed that mandatory radiology consultation interventions were ineffective in reducing inpatient imaging use. As a good outcome, introducing the clinical information systems (e.g., physician’s order entry system) reduced LOS. Such automated access to patient records improved the efficiency of information exchange among physicians across the continuum of care. Clinical decision support systems, which consisted of interruptive best practice alerts at the physician’s order entry system, also significantly improved blood utilisation. We found that interventions directed towards supply, such as physician profiling, were associated with decreased LOS without adversely affecting physician satisfaction. However, such reductions were also observed among control groups in ED visit numbers [30, 70, 73, 74], hospital admissions [66, 70, 73] and LOS [70]. Case or care management and utilisation review interventions were consistently reported to reduce hospital costs, and no studies reported increases in hospital costs following the intervention.
There were several limitations to this review. First, there is marked heterogeneity among reviewed studies. Second, in an attempt to focus on the literature concerning the general adult frequent user populations, studies were excluded that did not examine a general population (e.g., pediatric, individuals with asthma, cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease) or focused on a specialised out-patient care setting.

Conclusion

To ensure the delivery of efficient and effective health care, to reduce the misuse of inpatient and outpatient services, the use of utilisation management strategies in hospitals is unavoidable. The use of relevant strategies and interventions allows for avoiding unintended consequences emanating from the financial incentives and disincentives on health care professionals’ decisions around care and service delivery.

Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude to Tabriz University of Medical Sciences for supporting this study.

Declarations

This research is a review srudy and has no need to ethics approval.
Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Anhänge

Appendix

Appendix Table
Quality assessment of included studies
Authors (year)
Study Design
Blinding
Selection Bias
Withdrawals/ Drop-Outs
Confounders
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Reporting
Overall
1. Sandberg et al. (2015) [66]
Strong
Weak
Strong
Strong
Weak
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
2. Haldiman et al. (2014) [40]
Moderate
No rating
Weak
No rating
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
3. Goodnough et al. (2014) [37]
Weak
No rating
No rating
No rating
Weak
Moderate
Moderate
Weak
Weak
4. Joo (2014) [46]
Moderate
No rating
Weak
Weak
Weak
Strong
Strong
Strong
Weak
5. Buckley et al. (2013) [24]
Weak
No rating
No rating
No rating
Weak
Moderate
Weak
Strong
Weak
6. Reinius et al. (2013) [62]
Strong
Moderate
Moderate
Strong
Weak
Weak
Strong
Strong
Weak
7. Crane et al. (2012) [30]
Strong
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Weak
8. Roland et al. (2012) [64]
Moderate
No rating
Weak
Moderate
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Moderate
Weak
9. Koehler et al. (2009) [49]
Strong
Weak
No rating
Strong
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Strong
Weak
10. Schraeder et al. (2008) [67]
Weak
No rating
Weak
Weak
Strong
Weak
Strong
Strong
Weak
11. Holsinger et al. (2008) [42]
Weak
No rating
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
12. Sweeney et al. (2007) [77]
Strong
No rating
Weak
Strong
Weak
Moderate
Weak
Strong
Weak
13. Phillips et al. (2006) [59]
Weak
No rating
Weak
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Strong
Weak
14. Sledge et al. (2006) [73]
Strong
Moderate
Moderate
Strong
Weak
Weak
Strong
Strong
Weak
15. Mahendran et al. (2006) [54]
Weak
No rating
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Weak
16. Zemencuk et al. (2006) [85]
Strong
Weak
Weak
Weak
Strong
Weak
Strong
Strong
Weak
17. Latour et al. (2006) [52]
Strong
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Weak
Weak
Strong
Strong
Weak
18. Hegney et al. (2006) [41]
Weak
No rating
Weak
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Moderate
Weak
19. Horwitz et al. (2005) [43]
Strong
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Strong
Moderate
Weak
20. Leung et al. (2004) [53]
Strong
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Strong
Weak
21. Cox et al. (2003) [29]
Weak
No rating
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Weak
22. Hwang et al. (2002) [44]
Moderate
No rating
Strong
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Strong
Weak
23. Fateha (2002) [34]
Moderate
No rating
No rating
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Weak
24. Ferrazzi et al. (2001) [35]
Weak
No rating
No rating
No rating
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Strong
Weak
25. Okin et al. (2000) [57]
Weak
No rating
No rating
No rating
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Strong
Weak
26. Bates et al. (1999) [22]
Strong
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Strong
Strong
Weak
27. Wickizer et al. (1998) [82]
Weak
No rating
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Moderate
Strong
Strong
Weak
28. Spillane et al. (1997) [74]
Strong
Weak
Weak
Strong
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Moderate
Weak
29. Bree et al. (1996) [23]
Strong
Weak
Moderate
Weak
Moderate
Moderate
Strong
Strong
Weak
30. Shea et al. (1995) [69]
Strong
Weak
Moderate
Weak
Strong
Weak
Strong
Strong
Weak
31. Cardiff et al. (1995) [26]
Moderate
No rating
Weak
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Moderate
Weak
32. Styrborn (1995) [76]
Strong
Weak
Strong
Strong
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Moderate
Weak
33. Rosenberg et al. (1995) [65]
Moderate
No rating
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Weak
Strong
Strong
Moderate
34. Jambunathan et al. (1995) [45]
Moderate
No rating
No rating
No rating
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Weak
35. Williams et al. (1994) [83]
Moderate
No rating
Weak
No rating
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Moderate
Weak
36. Wickizer (1992) [81]
Weak
No rating
Weak
Weak
Strong
Moderate
Strong
Moderate
Weak
37. Woodside et al. (1991) [84]
Moderate
No rating
Weak
Moderate
Weak
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Weak
38. Silver et al. (1992) [71]
Moderate
No rating
No rating
No rating
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
39. Fowkes et al. (1986) [36]
Strong
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
40. Echols et al.(1984) [32]
Weak
No rating
Weak
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Weak
41. Restuccia (1982) [63]
Strong
Weak
Weak
Weak
Strong
Moderate
Strong
Strong
Weak
42. Murphy (2014) [56]
Weak
No rating
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Moderate
Strong
Strong
Weak
43. Chiang et al. (2014) [27]
Weak
No rating
Weak
No rating
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Strong
Weak
44. Pillow et al. (2013) [60]
Weak
No rating
No rating
No rating
Weak
Moderate
Weak
Moderate
Weak
45. Dehaven et al. (2012) [31]
Moderate
No rating
Weak
No rating
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Strong
Weak
46. Tadros et al. (2012) [78]
Weak
No rating
No rating
No rating
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Strong
Weak
47. Shah et al. (2011) [68]
Strong
Weak
No rating
No rating
Strong
Moderate
Strong
Strong
Moderate
48. Stokes-Buzzelli et al. (2010) [75]
Weak
No rating
No rating
No rating
Weak
Moderate
Moderate
Strong
Weak
49. Grimmer- Somers et al. (2010) [38]
Weak
No rating
No rating
No rating
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Weak
50. Grover et al. (2010) [39]
Weak
No rating
No rating
No rating
Weak
Moderate
Moderate
Strong
Weak
51. Skinner et al. (2009) [72]
Weak
No rating
No rating
No rating
Weak
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Weak
52. Shumway et al. (2008) [70]
Strong
Weak
Weak
Weak
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Weak
53. Pope et al. (2000) [61]
Weak
No rating
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Weak
54. Moher et al. (1992) [55]
Strong
Weak
Strong
Strong
Weak
Weak
Strong
Strong
Weak
55. Kennedy et al. (1987) [47]
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Weak
Strong
Weak
Weak
Weak
56. Kurant et al. (2018) [51]
Weak
No rating
No rating
No rating
Weak
Moderate
Weak
Moderate
Weak
57. Copeland et al. (2017) [28]
Weak
No rating
rating
No rating
Strong
Moderate
Strong
Moderate
Moderate
58. Pena et al. (2014) [58]
Weak
No rating
No rating
No rating
Weak
Moderate
Weak
Weak
Weak
59. Weilburg et al. (2017) [80]
Weak
No rating
No rating
No rating
Strong
Moderate
Strong
Strong
Moderate
60. Konger et al. (2016) [50]
Weak
No rating
No rating
No rating
Weak
Moderate
Weak
Moderate
Weak
61. El-Othmani et al. (2019) [33]
Moderate
No rating
No rating
No rating
Weak
Moderate
Weak
Moderate
Weak
62. Kim &Lee, (2020) [48]
Weak
No rating
Moderate
Moderate
Strong
Moderate
Strong
Strong
Moderate
63. Wasfy et al. (2019) [79]
Weak
No rating
No rating
No rating
Strong
Moderate
Strong
Strong
Moderate
64. Calsolaro et al. (2019) [25]
Weak
No rating
No rating
No rating
Moderate
Moderate
Strong
Strong
Moderate
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Brownlee S, Chalkidou K, Doust J, Elshaug AG, Glasziou P, Heath I, et al. Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world. Lancet (London, England). 2017;390(10090):156–68.CrossRef Brownlee S, Chalkidou K, Doust J, Elshaug AG, Glasziou P, Heath I, et al. Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world. Lancet (London, England). 2017;390(10090):156–68.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Soria-Aledo V, Carrillo-Alcaraz A, Flores-Pastor B, Moreno-Egea A, Carrasco-Prats M, Aguayo-Albasini JL. Reduction in inappropriate hospital use based on analysis of the causes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):361.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Soria-Aledo V, Carrillo-Alcaraz A, Flores-Pastor B, Moreno-Egea A, Carrasco-Prats M, Aguayo-Albasini JL. Reduction in inappropriate hospital use based on analysis of the causes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):361.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Panis LJGG, Gooskens M, Verheggen FWSM, Pop P, Prins MH. Predictors of inappropriate hospital stay: a clinical case study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003;15(1):57–066.PubMedCrossRef Panis LJGG, Gooskens M, Verheggen FWSM, Pop P, Prins MH. Predictors of inappropriate hospital stay: a clinical case study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003;15(1):57–066.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat McDonagh MS, Smith DH, Goddard M. Measuring appropriate use of acute beds. A systematic review of methods and results. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2000;53(3):157–84.CrossRef McDonagh MS, Smith DH, Goddard M. Measuring appropriate use of acute beds. A systematic review of methods and results. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2000;53(3):157–84.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Zarei E, Asghar Ghods A, Khabiri R, Raeisdana N, Ansari M, Hoshmand Motlagh N, et al. Predictors of Inappropriate Hospital Stay: Experience From Iran, vol. 7; 2015. Zarei E, Asghar Ghods A, Khabiri R, Raeisdana N, Ansari M, Hoshmand Motlagh N, et al. Predictors of Inappropriate Hospital Stay: Experience From Iran, vol. 7; 2015.
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhi M, Ding EL, Theisen-Toupal J, Whelan J, Arnaout R. The landscape of inappropriate laboratory testing: a 15-year meta-analysis. PloS one. 2013;8(11):e78962.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Zhi M, Ding EL, Theisen-Toupal J, Whelan J, Arnaout R. The landscape of inappropriate laboratory testing: a 15-year meta-analysis. PloS one. 2013;8(11):e78962.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Bhatia RS, Kumar V, Picard MH, Weiner RB. Comparison of the 2008 and 2011 appropriate use criteria for stress echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiography. 2013;26(4):339–43.CrossRef Bhatia RS, Kumar V, Picard MH, Weiner RB. Comparison of the 2008 and 2011 appropriate use criteria for stress echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiography. 2013;26(4):339–43.CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Campbell J. Inappropriate admissions: thoughts of patients and referring doctors. J Royal Soc Med. 2001;94(12):628–31.CrossRef Campbell J. Inappropriate admissions: thoughts of patients and referring doctors. J Royal Soc Med. 2001;94(12):628–31.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Commission P: Impacts of advances in medical technology in Australia. Productivity Commission, Government of Australia Research Reports 2005.CrossRef Commission P: Impacts of advances in medical technology in Australia. Productivity Commission, Government of Australia Research Reports 2005.CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Tan L, Ong K. The Impact of Medical Technology on Healthcare Today. Hong Kong J Emerg Med. 2002;9(4):231–6.CrossRef Tan L, Ong K. The Impact of Medical Technology on Healthcare Today. Hong Kong J Emerg Med. 2002;9(4):231–6.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Stadhouders N, Kruse F, Tanke M, Koolman X, Jeurissen P. Effective healthcare cost-containment policies: a systematic review. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2019;123(1):71–9.CrossRef Stadhouders N, Kruse F, Tanke M, Koolman X, Jeurissen P. Effective healthcare cost-containment policies: a systematic review. Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2019;123(1):71–9.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Schwierz C. Cost-containment policies in hospital expenditure in the European Union. In: Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European; 2016. Schwierz C. Cost-containment policies in hospital expenditure in the European Union. In: Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European; 2016.
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Sari AA, Doshmangir L, Sheldon T. A systematic review of the extent, nature and likely causes of preventable adverse events arising from hospital care. Iran J Public Health. 2010;39(3):1.PubMedPubMedCentral Sari AA, Doshmangir L, Sheldon T. A systematic review of the extent, nature and likely causes of preventable adverse events arising from hospital care. Iran J Public Health. 2010;39(3):1.PubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Doshmangir L, Hasanpoor E, Abou Jaoude GJ, Eshtiagh B, Haghparast-Bidgoli H. Incidence of Catastrophic Health Expenditure and Its Determinants in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19(6):839–55.PubMedCrossRef Doshmangir L, Hasanpoor E, Abou Jaoude GJ, Eshtiagh B, Haghparast-Bidgoli H. Incidence of Catastrophic Health Expenditure and Its Determinants in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19(6):839–55.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Doshmangir L, Yousefi M, Hasanpoor E, Eshtiagh B, Haghparast-Bidgoli H. Determinants of catastrophic health expenditures in Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cost Effective Resource Allocation. 2020;18(1):1–21.CrossRef Doshmangir L, Yousefi M, Hasanpoor E, Eshtiagh B, Haghparast-Bidgoli H. Determinants of catastrophic health expenditures in Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cost Effective Resource Allocation. 2020;18(1):1–21.CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Joudyian N, Doshmangir L, Mahdavi M, Tabrizi JS, Gordeev VS. Public-private partnerships in primary health care: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1–18.CrossRef Joudyian N, Doshmangir L, Mahdavi M, Tabrizi JS, Gordeev VS. Public-private partnerships in primary health care: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1–18.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Liu X. Policy tools for allocative efficiency of health services: World Health Organization; 2003. Liu X. Policy tools for allocative efficiency of health services: World Health Organization; 2003.
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Hurley E, McRae I, Bigg I, Stackhouse L, Boxall A, Broadhead P: The Australian health care system: the potential for efficiency gains. A review of the literature Background paper prepared for the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission Canberra: Australian Government 2009. Hurley E, McRae I, Bigg I, Stackhouse L, Boxall A, Broadhead P: The Australian health care system: the potential for efficiency gains. A review of the literature Background paper prepared for the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission Canberra: Australian Government 2009.
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Aldhizer GR, Juras P. Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of healthcare delivery systems. CPA J. 2015;85(1):66. Aldhizer GR, Juras P. Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of healthcare delivery systems. CPA J. 2015;85(1):66.
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Thomas B, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Micucci S. A process for systematically reviewing the literature: providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2004;1(3):176–84.PubMedCrossRef Thomas B, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Micucci S. A process for systematically reviewing the literature: providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2004;1(3):176–84.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Rittenberg E, Teich JM, Fiskio J, Ma’luf N, et al. A randomized trial of a computer-based intervention to reduce utilization of redundant laboratory tests. Am J Med. 1999;106(2):144–50.PubMedCrossRef Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Rittenberg E, Teich JM, Fiskio J, Ma’luf N, et al. A randomized trial of a computer-based intervention to reduce utilization of redundant laboratory tests. Am J Med. 1999;106(2):144–50.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Bree RL, Kazerooni EA, Katz SJ. Effect of mandatory radiology consultation on inpatient imaging use: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1996;276(19):1595–8.PubMedCrossRef Bree RL, Kazerooni EA, Katz SJ. Effect of mandatory radiology consultation on inpatient imaging use: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1996;276(19):1595–8.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Buckley MS, Kane-Gill SL, Patel SA. Clinical and economic evaluation of an evidence-based institutional epoetin-utilization management program. Clin Therapeutics. 2013;35(3):294–302.CrossRef Buckley MS, Kane-Gill SL, Patel SA. Clinical and economic evaluation of an evidence-based institutional epoetin-utilization management program. Clin Therapeutics. 2013;35(3):294–302.CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Calsolaro V, Antognoli R, Pasqualetti G, Okoye C, Aquilini F, Cristofano M, et al. 30-Day Potentially Preventable Hospital Readmissions In Older Patients: Clinical Phenotype And Health Care Related Risk Factors. Clin Intervent Aging. 1851;2019:14. Calsolaro V, Antognoli R, Pasqualetti G, Okoye C, Aquilini F, Cristofano M, et al. 30-Day Potentially Preventable Hospital Readmissions In Older Patients: Clinical Phenotype And Health Care Related Risk Factors. Clin Intervent Aging. 1851;2019:14.
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Cardiff K, Anderson G, Sheps S. Evaluation of a hospital-based utilization management program. In: Healthcare management forum: 1995. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Sage CA; 1995. p. 38–45. Cardiff K, Anderson G, Sheps S. Evaluation of a hospital-based utilization management program. In: Healthcare management forum: 1995. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Sage CA; 1995. p. 38–45.
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Chiang C, Lee C, Tsai T, Li C, Lee W, Wu K. Dynamic internet-mediated team-based case management of high-frequency emergency department users. Hong Kong J Emerg Med. 2014;21(3):161–6.CrossRef Chiang C, Lee C, Tsai T, Li C, Lee W, Wu K. Dynamic internet-mediated team-based case management of high-frequency emergency department users. Hong Kong J Emerg Med. 2014;21(3):161–6.CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Copeland TP, Franc BL. High-cost cancer imaging: opportunities for utilization management. J Cancer Policy. 2017;12:16–20.CrossRef Copeland TP, Franc BL. High-cost cancer imaging: opportunities for utilization management. J Cancer Policy. 2017;12:16–20.CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Cox WK, Penny LC, Statham RP, Roper BL. Admission intervention team: medical center based intensive case management of the seriously mentally ill. Care Manag J. 2003;4(4):178–84.PubMedCrossRef Cox WK, Penny LC, Statham RP, Roper BL. Admission intervention team: medical center based intensive case management of the seriously mentally ill. Care Manag J. 2003;4(4):178–84.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Crane S, Collins L, Hall J, Rochester D, Patch S. Reducing utilization by uninsured frequent users of the emergency department: combining case management and drop-in group medical appointments. J Am Board Fam Med. 2012;25(2):184–91.PubMedCrossRef Crane S, Collins L, Hall J, Rochester D, Patch S. Reducing utilization by uninsured frequent users of the emergency department: combining case management and drop-in group medical appointments. J Am Board Fam Med. 2012;25(2):184–91.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat DeHaven M, Kitzman-Ulrich H, Gimpel N, Culica D, O’neil L, Marcee A, et al. The effects of a community-based partnership, Project Access Dallas (PAD), on emergency department utilization and costs among the uninsured. J Public Health. 2012;34(4):577–83.CrossRef DeHaven M, Kitzman-Ulrich H, Gimpel N, Culica D, O’neil L, Marcee A, et al. The effects of a community-based partnership, Project Access Dallas (PAD), on emergency department utilization and costs among the uninsured. J Public Health. 2012;34(4):577–83.CrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Echols RM, Kowalsky SF. The use of an antibiotic order form for antibiotic utilization review: influence on physicians’ prescribing patterns. J Infect Dis. 1984;150(6):803–7.PubMedCrossRef Echols RM, Kowalsky SF. The use of an antibiotic order form for antibiotic utilization review: influence on physicians’ prescribing patterns. J Infect Dis. 1984;150(6):803–7.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat El-Othmani MM, Sayeed Z, J’nise AR, Abaab L, Little BE, Saleh KJ. The joint utilization management program—implementation of a bundle payment model and comparison between year 1 and 2 results. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(11):2532–7.PubMedCrossRef El-Othmani MM, Sayeed Z, J’nise AR, Abaab L, Little BE, Saleh KJ. The joint utilization management program—implementation of a bundle payment model and comparison between year 1 and 2 results. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(11):2532–7.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Fateha B. Evaluation of the utilization management programme at Salmaniya Medical Complex, Bahrain. EMHJ-Eastern Mediterranean Health J. 2002;8(4-5):556–65.CrossRef Fateha B. Evaluation of the utilization management programme at Salmaniya Medical Complex, Bahrain. EMHJ-Eastern Mediterranean Health J. 2002;8(4-5):556–65.CrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Ferrazzi S, Waltner-Toews D, Abernathy T, McEwen S. The effects of prehospital advanced life support drug treatment on patient improvement and in-hospital utilization. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2001;5(3):252–60.CrossRef Ferrazzi S, Waltner-Toews D, Abernathy T, McEwen S. The effects of prehospital advanced life support drug treatment on patient improvement and in-hospital utilization. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2001;5(3):252–60.CrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Fowkes F, Evans K, Hartley G, Nolan D, Roberts C, Davies E, et al. Multicentre trial of four strategies to reduce use of a radiological test. Lancet. 1986;327(8477):367–70.CrossRef Fowkes F, Evans K, Hartley G, Nolan D, Roberts C, Davies E, et al. Multicentre trial of four strategies to reduce use of a radiological test. Lancet. 1986;327(8477):367–70.CrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Goodnough LT, Shieh L, Hadhazy E, Cheng N, Khari P, Maggio P. Improved blood utilization using real-time clinical decision support. Transfusion. 2014;54(5):1358–65.PubMedCrossRef Goodnough LT, Shieh L, Hadhazy E, Cheng N, Khari P, Maggio P. Improved blood utilization using real-time clinical decision support. Transfusion. 2014;54(5):1358–65.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Grimmer-Somers K, Johnston K, Somers E, Luker J, Ann Alemao L, Jones D. A holistic client-centred program for vulnerable frequent hospital attenders: cost efficiencies and changed practices. Aust New Zealand J Public Health. 2010;34(6):609–12.CrossRef Grimmer-Somers K, Johnston K, Somers E, Luker J, Ann Alemao L, Jones D. A holistic client-centred program for vulnerable frequent hospital attenders: cost efficiencies and changed practices. Aust New Zealand J Public Health. 2010;34(6):609–12.CrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Grover CA, Close RJ, Villarreal K, Goldman LM. Emergency department frequent user: pilot study of intensive case management to reduce visits and computed tomography. Western J Emerg Med. 2010;11(4):336. Grover CA, Close RJ, Villarreal K, Goldman LM. Emergency department frequent user: pilot study of intensive case management to reduce visits and computed tomography. Western J Emerg Med. 2010;11(4):336.
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Haldiman L, Zia H, Singh G. Improving appropriateness of blood utilization through prospective review of requests for blood products: the role of pathology residents as consultants. Lab Med. 2014;45(3):264–71.PubMedCrossRef Haldiman L, Zia H, Singh G. Improving appropriateness of blood utilization through prospective review of requests for blood products: the role of pathology residents as consultants. Lab Med. 2014;45(3):264–71.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Hegney D, Buikstra E, Chamberlain C, March J, McKay M, Cope G, et al. Nurse discharge planning in the emergency department: a Toowoomba, Australia, study. J Clin Nurs. 2006;15(8):1033–44.PubMedCrossRef Hegney D, Buikstra E, Chamberlain C, March J, McKay M, Cope G, et al. Nurse discharge planning in the emergency department: a Toowoomba, Australia, study. J Clin Nurs. 2006;15(8):1033–44.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Holsinger D, McCabe J, Warren K. The collaborative method: An effective performance improvement tool for reducing inappropriate admissions. J Healthcare Q. 2008;30(4):6–11.CrossRef Holsinger D, McCabe J, Warren K. The collaborative method: An effective performance improvement tool for reducing inappropriate admissions. J Healthcare Q. 2008;30(4):6–11.CrossRef
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Horwitz SM, Busch SH, Balestracci KM, Ellingson KD, Rawlings J. Intensive intervention improves primary care follow-up for uninsured emergency department patients. Acad Emerg Med. 2005;12(7):647–52.PubMedCrossRef Horwitz SM, Busch SH, Balestracci KM, Ellingson KD, Rawlings J. Intensive intervention improves primary care follow-up for uninsured emergency department patients. Acad Emerg Med. 2005;12(7):647–52.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Hwang J-I, Park H-A, Bakken S. Impact of a physician’s order entry (POE) system on physicians’ ordering patterns and patient length of stay. Int J Med Inform. 2002;65(3):213–23.PubMedCrossRef Hwang J-I, Park H-A, Bakken S. Impact of a physician’s order entry (POE) system on physicians’ ordering patterns and patient length of stay. Int J Med Inform. 2002;65(3):213–23.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Jambunathan J, Van Dongen CJ. Use of RN case management and costs and utilization of outpatient mental health services: a pilot study. Issues Mental Health Nurs. 1995;16(5):407–18.CrossRef Jambunathan J, Van Dongen CJ. Use of RN case management and costs and utilization of outpatient mental health services: a pilot study. Issues Mental Health Nurs. 1995;16(5):407–18.CrossRef
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Joo JY. Community-based case management, hospital utilization, and patient-focused outcomes in Medicare beneficiaries. Western J Nursing Res. 2014;36(6):825–44.CrossRef Joo JY. Community-based case management, hospital utilization, and patient-focused outcomes in Medicare beneficiaries. Western J Nursing Res. 2014;36(6):825–44.CrossRef
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Kennedy L, Neidlinger S, Scroggins K. Effective comprehensive discharge planning for hospitalized elderly. Gerontologist. 1987;27(5):577–80.PubMedCrossRef Kennedy L, Neidlinger S, Scroggins K. Effective comprehensive discharge planning for hospitalized elderly. Gerontologist. 1987;27(5):577–80.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim MJ, Lee E. How to reduce excessive use of the health care service in Medical Aid beneficiaries: Effectiveness of community-based case management. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(7):2503.PubMedCentralCrossRef Kim MJ, Lee E. How to reduce excessive use of the health care service in Medical Aid beneficiaries: Effectiveness of community-based case management. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(7):2503.PubMedCentralCrossRef
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Koehler BE, Richter KM, Youngblood L, Cohen BA, Prengler ID, Cheng D, et al. Reduction of 30-day postdischarge hospital readmission or emergency department (ED) visit rates in high-risk elderly medical patients through delivery of a targeted care bundle. J Hospital Med. 2009;4(4):211–8.CrossRef Koehler BE, Richter KM, Youngblood L, Cohen BA, Prengler ID, Cheng D, et al. Reduction of 30-day postdischarge hospital readmission or emergency department (ED) visit rates in high-risk elderly medical patients through delivery of a targeted care bundle. J Hospital Med. 2009;4(4):211–8.CrossRef
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Konger RL, Ndekwe P, Jones G, Schmidt RP, Trey M, Baty EJ, et al. Reduction in unnecessary clinical laboratory testing through utilization management at a US government veterans affairs hospital. Am J Clin Pathol. 2016;145(3):355–64.PubMedCrossRef Konger RL, Ndekwe P, Jones G, Schmidt RP, Trey M, Baty EJ, et al. Reduction in unnecessary clinical laboratory testing through utilization management at a US government veterans affairs hospital. Am J Clin Pathol. 2016;145(3):355–64.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Zurück zum Zitat Kurant DE, Baron JM, Strazimiri G, Lewandrowski KB, Rudolf JW, Dighe AS. Creation and use of an electronic health record reporting database to improve a laboratory test utilization program. Appl Clin Inform. 2018;9(3):519.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Kurant DE, Baron JM, Strazimiri G, Lewandrowski KB, Rudolf JW, Dighe AS. Creation and use of an electronic health record reporting database to improve a laboratory test utilization program. Appl Clin Inform. 2018;9(3):519.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Latour CH, de Vos R, Huyse FJ, de Jonge P, Van Gemert LA, Stalman WA. Effectiveness of post-discharge case management in general-medical outpatients: a randomized, controlled trial. Psychosomatics. 2006;47(5):421–9.PubMedCrossRef Latour CH, de Vos R, Huyse FJ, de Jonge P, Van Gemert LA, Stalman WA. Effectiveness of post-discharge case management in general-medical outpatients: a randomized, controlled trial. Psychosomatics. 2006;47(5):421–9.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Zurück zum Zitat Leung AC, Yau DC, Liu CP, Yeoh CS, Chui TY, Chi I, et al. Reducing utilisation of hospital services by case management: a randomised controlled trial. Australian Health Rev. 2004;28(1):79–86.CrossRef Leung AC, Yau DC, Liu CP, Yeoh CS, Chui TY, Chi I, et al. Reducing utilisation of hospital services by case management: a randomised controlled trial. Australian Health Rev. 2004;28(1):79–86.CrossRef
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Mahendran R, Hendriks M, Thambyrajah V, Vellayan T, Maarof M. Case Management in a Psychiatric Hospital: Review of Outcomes and Resource Utilisation. Hong Kong J Psychiatry. 2006;16(1):3–6. Mahendran R, Hendriks M, Thambyrajah V, Vellayan T, Maarof M. Case Management in a Psychiatric Hospital: Review of Outcomes and Resource Utilisation. Hong Kong J Psychiatry. 2006;16(1):3–6.
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Moher D, Weinberg A, Hanlon R, Runnalls K. Effects of a medical team coordinator on length of hospital stay. CMAJ. 1992;146(4):511.PubMedPubMedCentral Moher D, Weinberg A, Hanlon R, Runnalls K. Effects of a medical team coordinator on length of hospital stay. CMAJ. 1992;146(4):511.PubMedPubMedCentral
56.
Zurück zum Zitat Murphy SM, Neven D. Cost-effective: emergency department care coordination with a regional hospital information system. J Emerg Med. 2014;47(2):223–31.PubMedCrossRef Murphy SM, Neven D. Cost-effective: emergency department care coordination with a regional hospital information system. J Emerg Med. 2014;47(2):223–31.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Zurück zum Zitat Okin RL, Boccellari A, Azocar F, Shumway M, O’Brien K, Gelb A, et al. The effects of clinical case management on hospital service use among ED frequent users. Am J Emerg Med. 2000;18(5):603–8.PubMedCrossRef Okin RL, Boccellari A, Azocar F, Shumway M, O’Brien K, Gelb A, et al. The effects of clinical case management on hospital service use among ED frequent users. Am J Emerg Med. 2000;18(5):603–8.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Zurück zum Zitat Peña JRA. Utilization management in the blood transfusion service. Clin Chimica Acta. 2014;427:178–82.CrossRef Peña JRA. Utilization management in the blood transfusion service. Clin Chimica Acta. 2014;427:178–82.CrossRef
59.
Zurück zum Zitat Phillips GA, Brophy DS, Weiland TJ, Chenhall AJ, Dent AW. The effect of multidisciplinary case management on selected outcomes for frequent attenders at an emergency department. Med J Aust. 2006;184(12):602–6.PubMedCrossRef Phillips GA, Brophy DS, Weiland TJ, Chenhall AJ, Dent AW. The effect of multidisciplinary case management on selected outcomes for frequent attenders at an emergency department. Med J Aust. 2006;184(12):602–6.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Zurück zum Zitat Pillow MT, Doctor S, Brown S, Carter K, Mulliken R. An emergency department-initiated, web-based, multidisciplinary approach to decreasing emergency department visits by the top frequent visitors using patient care plans. J Emerg Med. 2013;44(4):853–60.PubMedCrossRef Pillow MT, Doctor S, Brown S, Carter K, Mulliken R. An emergency department-initiated, web-based, multidisciplinary approach to decreasing emergency department visits by the top frequent visitors using patient care plans. J Emerg Med. 2013;44(4):853–60.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Zurück zum Zitat Pope D, Fernandes CM, Bouthillette F, Etherington J. Frequent users of the emergency department: a program to improve care and reduce visits. Cmaj. 2000;162(7):1017–20.PubMedPubMedCentral Pope D, Fernandes CM, Bouthillette F, Etherington J. Frequent users of the emergency department: a program to improve care and reduce visits. Cmaj. 2000;162(7):1017–20.PubMedPubMedCentral
62.
Zurück zum Zitat Reinius P, Johansson M, Fjellner A, Werr J, Öhlén G, Edgren G. A telephone-based case-management intervention reduces healthcare utilization for frequent emergency department visitors. Eur J Emerg Med. 2013;20(5):327–34.PubMedCrossRef Reinius P, Johansson M, Fjellner A, Werr J, Öhlén G, Edgren G. A telephone-based case-management intervention reduces healthcare utilization for frequent emergency department visitors. Eur J Emerg Med. 2013;20(5):327–34.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Zurück zum Zitat Restuccia JD. The effect of concurrent feedback in reducing inappropriate hospital utilization. Med Care. 1982;20(1):46–62.PubMedCrossRef Restuccia JD. The effect of concurrent feedback in reducing inappropriate hospital utilization. Med Care. 1982;20(1):46–62.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Zurück zum Zitat Roland M, Lewis R, Steventon A, Abel G, Adams J, Bardsley M, et al. Case management for at-risk elderly patients in the English integrated care pilots: observational study of staff and patient experience and secondary care utilisation. Int J Integrated Care. 2012;12:e130. Roland M, Lewis R, Steventon A, Abel G, Adams J, Bardsley M, et al. Case management for at-risk elderly patients in the English integrated care pilots: observational study of staff and patient experience and secondary care utilisation. Int J Integrated Care. 2012;12:e130.
65.
Zurück zum Zitat Rosenberg SN, Allen DR, Handte JS, Jackson TC, Leto L, Rodstein BM, et al. Effect of utilization review in a fee-for-service health insurance plan. New England J Med. 1995;333(20):1326–31.CrossRef Rosenberg SN, Allen DR, Handte JS, Jackson TC, Leto L, Rodstein BM, et al. Effect of utilization review in a fee-for-service health insurance plan. New England J Med. 1995;333(20):1326–31.CrossRef
66.
Zurück zum Zitat Sandberg M, Kristensson J, Midlöv P, Jakobsson U. Effects on healthcare utilization of case management for frail older people: A randomized controlled trial (RCT). Arch Gerontol Geriatrics. 2015;60(1):71–81.CrossRef Sandberg M, Kristensson J, Midlöv P, Jakobsson U. Effects on healthcare utilization of case management for frail older people: A randomized controlled trial (RCT). Arch Gerontol Geriatrics. 2015;60(1):71–81.CrossRef
67.
Zurück zum Zitat Schraeder C, Fraser CW, Clark I, Long B, Shelton P, Waldschmidt V, et al. Evaluation of a primary care nurse case management intervention for chronically ill community dwelling older people. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17(11c):407–17.PubMedCrossRef Schraeder C, Fraser CW, Clark I, Long B, Shelton P, Waldschmidt V, et al. Evaluation of a primary care nurse case management intervention for chronically ill community dwelling older people. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17(11c):407–17.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Zurück zum Zitat Shah R, Chen C, O’Rourke S, Lee M, Mohanty SA, Abraham J. Evaluation of care management for the uninsured. Med Care. 2011;49:166–71.PubMedCrossRef Shah R, Chen C, O’Rourke S, Lee M, Mohanty SA, Abraham J. Evaluation of care management for the uninsured. Med Care. 2011;49:166–71.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Zurück zum Zitat Shea S, Sideli RV, DuMouchel W, Pulver G, Arons RR, Clayton PD. Computer-generated informational messages directed to physicians: effect on length of hospital stay. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1995;2(1):58–64.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Shea S, Sideli RV, DuMouchel W, Pulver G, Arons RR, Clayton PD. Computer-generated informational messages directed to physicians: effect on length of hospital stay. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1995;2(1):58–64.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
70.
Zurück zum Zitat Shumway M, Boccellari A, O’Brien K, Okin RL. Cost-effectiveness of clinical case management for ED frequent users: results of a randomized trial⋆. Am J Emerg Med. 2008;26(2):155–64.PubMedCrossRef Shumway M, Boccellari A, O’Brien K, Okin RL. Cost-effectiveness of clinical case management for ED frequent users: results of a randomized trial⋆. Am J Emerg Med. 2008;26(2):155–64.PubMedCrossRef
71.
Zurück zum Zitat Silver H, Tahhan H, Anderson J, Lachman M. A non-computer-dependent prospective review of blood and blood component utilization. Transfusion. 1992;32(3):260–5.PubMedCrossRef Silver H, Tahhan H, Anderson J, Lachman M. A non-computer-dependent prospective review of blood and blood component utilization. Transfusion. 1992;32(3):260–5.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Zurück zum Zitat Skinner J, Carter L, Haxton C. Case management of patients who frequently present to a Scottish emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2009;26(2):103–5.PubMedCrossRef Skinner J, Carter L, Haxton C. Case management of patients who frequently present to a Scottish emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2009;26(2):103–5.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Zurück zum Zitat Sledge WH, Brown KE, Levine JM, Fiellin DA, Chawarski M, White WD, et al. A randomized trial of primary intensive care to reduce hospital admissions in patients with high utilization of inpatient services. Disease Manag. 2006;9(6):328–38.CrossRef Sledge WH, Brown KE, Levine JM, Fiellin DA, Chawarski M, White WD, et al. A randomized trial of primary intensive care to reduce hospital admissions in patients with high utilization of inpatient services. Disease Manag. 2006;9(6):328–38.CrossRef
74.
Zurück zum Zitat Spillane LL, Lumb EW, Cobaugh DJ, Wilcox SR, Clark JS, Schneider SM. Frequent users of the emergency department: can we intervene? Acad Emerg Med. 1997;4(6):574–80.PubMedCrossRef Spillane LL, Lumb EW, Cobaugh DJ, Wilcox SR, Clark JS, Schneider SM. Frequent users of the emergency department: can we intervene? Acad Emerg Med. 1997;4(6):574–80.PubMedCrossRef
75.
Zurück zum Zitat Stokes-Buzzelli S, Peltzer-Jones JM, Martin GB, Ford MM, Weise A. Use of health information technology to manage frequently presenting emergency department patients. Western J Emerg Med. 2010;11(4):348. Stokes-Buzzelli S, Peltzer-Jones JM, Martin GB, Ford MM, Weise A. Use of health information technology to manage frequently presenting emergency department patients. Western J Emerg Med. 2010;11(4):348.
76.
Zurück zum Zitat Styrborn K. Early discharge planning for elderly patients in acute hospitals—an intervention study. Scand J Soc Med. 1995;23(4):273–85.PubMedCrossRef Styrborn K. Early discharge planning for elderly patients in acute hospitals—an intervention study. Scand J Soc Med. 1995;23(4):273–85.PubMedCrossRef
77.
Zurück zum Zitat Sweeney L, Halpert A, Waranoff J. Patient-centered management of complex patients can reduce costs without shortening life. Am J Manag Care. 2007;13(2):84-92. PMID: 17286528. Sweeney L, Halpert A, Waranoff J. Patient-centered management of complex patients can reduce costs without shortening life. Am J Manag Care. 2007;13(2):84-92. PMID: 17286528.
78.
Zurück zum Zitat Tadros AS, Castillo EM, Chan TC, Jensen AM, Patel E, Watts K, et al. Effects of an emergency medical services–based resource access program on frequent users of health services. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2012;16(4):541–7.CrossRef Tadros AS, Castillo EM, Chan TC, Jensen AM, Patel E, Watts K, et al. Effects of an emergency medical services–based resource access program on frequent users of health services. Prehospital Emerg Care. 2012;16(4):541–7.CrossRef
79.
Zurück zum Zitat Wasfy JH, Bhambhani V, Healy EW, Choirat C, Dominici F, Wadhera RK, et al. Relative effects of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program on hospitals that serve poorer patients. Med care. 2019;57(12):968–76.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Wasfy JH, Bhambhani V, Healy EW, Choirat C, Dominici F, Wadhera RK, et al. Relative effects of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program on hospitals that serve poorer patients. Med care. 2019;57(12):968–76.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
80.
Zurück zum Zitat Weilburg JB, Sistrom CL, Rosenthal DI, Stout MB, Dreyer KJ, Rockett HR, et al. Utilization management of high-cost imaging in an outpatient setting in a large stable patient and provider cohort over 7 years. Radiology. 2017;284(3):766–76.PubMedCrossRef Weilburg JB, Sistrom CL, Rosenthal DI, Stout MB, Dreyer KJ, Rockett HR, et al. Utilization management of high-cost imaging in an outpatient setting in a large stable patient and provider cohort over 7 years. Radiology. 2017;284(3):766–76.PubMedCrossRef
81.
Zurück zum Zitat Wickizer TM. The effects of utilization review on hospital use and expenditures: a covariance analysis. Health Serv Res. 1992;27(1):103.PubMedPubMedCentral Wickizer TM. The effects of utilization review on hospital use and expenditures: a covariance analysis. Health Serv Res. 1992;27(1):103.PubMedPubMedCentral
82.
Zurück zum Zitat Wickizer TM, Lessler D. Effects of utilization management on patterns of hospital care among privately insured adult patients. Med Care. 1998;36(11):1545–54.PubMedCrossRef Wickizer TM, Lessler D. Effects of utilization management on patterns of hospital care among privately insured adult patients. Med Care. 1998;36(11):1545–54.PubMedCrossRef
83.
Zurück zum Zitat Williams D, Chiu E, Harvey K. Does admission to a hospital geriatric psychiatry programme improve benzodiazepine and other drug use? Intern J Geriatric Psychiatry. 1994;9(6):501–5.CrossRef Williams D, Chiu E, Harvey K. Does admission to a hospital geriatric psychiatry programme improve benzodiazepine and other drug use? Intern J Geriatric Psychiatry. 1994;9(6):501–5.CrossRef
84.
Zurück zum Zitat Woodside JR, Bodne R, Tonnesen AS, Frazier J. Intensive, Focused Utilization Management in a Teaching Hospital An Exploratory Study. Qual Assurance Utilization Rev. 1991;6(2):47–50.CrossRef Woodside JR, Bodne R, Tonnesen AS, Frazier J. Intensive, Focused Utilization Management in a Teaching Hospital An Exploratory Study. Qual Assurance Utilization Rev. 1991;6(2):47–50.CrossRef
85.
Zurück zum Zitat Zemencuk JK, Hofer TP, Hayward RA, Moseley RH, Saint S. What effect does physician “profiling” have on inpatient physician satisfaction and hospital length of stay? BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6(1):1–8.CrossRef Zemencuk JK, Hofer TP, Hayward RA, Moseley RH, Saint S. What effect does physician “profiling” have on inpatient physician satisfaction and hospital length of stay? BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6(1):1–8.CrossRef
86.
Zurück zum Zitat Beaumont R. Introduction to health Informatics. Types of Health Information Systems; 2011. Beaumont R. Introduction to health Informatics. Types of Health Information Systems; 2011.
87.
Zurück zum Zitat Beaumont R. Types of Health Information Systems (IS). Introduction to health Informatics; 2011. Beaumont R. Types of Health Information Systems (IS). Introduction to health Informatics; 2011.
88.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee PR, Lasker RD, Shapiro DW, Bindman AB. Managed care: provider profiling. J Insurance Med (New York, NY). 1992;24(3):179–81. Lee PR, Lasker RD, Shapiro DW, Bindman AB. Managed care: provider profiling. J Insurance Med (New York, NY). 1992;24(3):179–81.
89.
Zurück zum Zitat Shepperd S, Lannin NA, Clemson LM, McCluskey A, Cameron ID, Barras SL. Discharge planning from hospital to home. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(1):CD000313. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000313.pub4. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(1):CD000313. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;2:CD000313. Shepperd S, Lannin NA, Clemson LM, McCluskey A, Cameron ID, Barras SL. Discharge planning from hospital to home. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(1):CD000313. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​14651858.​CD000313.​pub4. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(1):CD000313. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;2:CD000313.
90.
Zurück zum Zitat Curtis JL, Millman EJ, Struening E, D’Ercole A. Effect of case management on rehospitalization and utilization of ambulatory care services. Hospital Community Psychiatry**. 1992;43(9):895–9. Curtis JL, Millman EJ, Struening E, D’Ercole A. Effect of case management on rehospitalization and utilization of ambulatory care services. Hospital Community Psychiatry**. 1992;43(9):895–9.
Metadaten
Titel
Strategies for utilisation management of hospital services: a systematic review of interventions
verfasst von
Leila Doshmangir
Roghayeh Khabiri
Hossein Jabbari
Morteza Arab-Zozani
Edris Kakemam
Vladimir Sergeevich Gordeev
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2022
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
Globalization and Health / Ausgabe 1/2022
Elektronische ISSN: 1744-8603
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-022-00835-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2022

Globalization and Health 1/2022 Zur Ausgabe