Cost of hospital-wide activities to improve patient safety and infection control: A multi-centre study in Japan
Introduction
Adverse events including hospital-acquired infections enact heavy disease tolls on patients and place large financial burdens on healthcare institutions. According to the Institute of Medicine [1], preventable adverse events in the United States (US) cause 44,000–98,000 deaths annually and represent a cost of US$ 17–29 billion. In the United Kingdom (UK), between 0.3 and 1.4 million patients in the National Health Service hospital sectors are affected by adverse events each year, resulting in £2 billion in inpatient costs. The costs attributable to hospital-acquired infections were estimated at nearly £1 billion a year, which was regarded as preventable in about 15% of cases [2].
Over the past 10 years, the Japanese government has taken measures against adverse events in healthcare institutions. The first measures were conducted in 1996 for the prevention and control of hospital-acquired infection [3]. These measures included new medical regulations requiring hospitals to implement several infection control policies, including establishing infection control committees, reporting comprehensive infection data, and developing hand hygiene activities. By implementing these programs, hospitals received additional payments of US$ 0.43 (JPN¥ 50) per patient-day as an incentive. Later, in 2000, following growing concerns for patient safety, the reimbursement system was changed to a punitive approach whereby hospitals failing to implement these programs were charged a decreased hospital reimbursement US$ 0.43 (JPN¥ 50) per patient-day [4].
After a devastating medical error at a university hospital in 1999, concerns over patient safety in Japan further increased. The government responded by issuing a new series of patient safety regulations for healthcare institutions. These measures were enacted in 2000, requiring all university hospitals and two large medical centres to (1) establish institutional guidelines for patient safety, (2) develop reporting systems of adverse events, (3) organize patient safety committees, and (4) provide continuous staff education and training about patient safety [5]. In 2002 these measures were extended to all hospitals in Japan [6]. Additionally, the government took a punitive approach in providing a decreased hospital reimbursement of US$ 0.85 (JPN¥ 100) per patient-day for those hospitals that did not implement these programs [7].
In 2006, regulations for infection control and for patient safety did not reflect national fee schedules. Instead, as long as hospitals employed full-time staff who had professional training for patient safety, hospitals could receive additional payment of about US$ 4.26 (JPN¥ 500) per patient [8]. In contrast, in the US, the Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services will stop reimbursing hospitals for clearly preventable adverse events from 2008 [9].
Contrary to the policies encouraging hospitals to implement these programs for patient safety, there are few financial incentives in Japan's payment system to invest in such programs. Under the existing fee-for-service reimbursement system or new per-diem payment system, even the costs incurred by treatment of complications resulting in additional length of stay are compensated by the payment systems. In such systems, there is a conflict of interest between society and hospitals; decreases in healthcare resources benefit society and patients, but increases in resources are financially beneficial for hospitals. Moreover, increasing pressure to contain the growth of healthcare expenditures has made safety program implementation extremely difficult, since there are limited resources, and the challenge of balancing the hospital budget is great. If studies demonstrate that safety programs can improve patient outcomes, the information could be used to support the financial worth of patient safety activities. However, patient safety is difficult to measure and there is a limited number of validated measures to use [10], [11], [12]. Therefore, the formulation or use of such outcomes remains highly unlikely.
Despite these formidable barriers, the healthcare system should be well poised to increase the pace of improving patient safety. The first step is to assess the costs of activities related to patient safety. Detailed cost information is valuable for the following reasons. First, cost information can help hospital administrators make decisions that contribute to the front-line practitioners who work to promote patient safety. Cost analysis is an essential tool for visualizing actual activity conditions in a quantitative context. Second, cost information can help in the budgeting of safety improvement activities [13]. The sustainability of hospital safety programs is a potential threat to the medical delivery system due to constrained finances and limited staff time to implement safety-related activities. A potential way to deal with this problem is clear budgeting, for which cost information is imperative. Finally, from a societal perspective, cost information can provide a guide for how to supply health services at a patient safety level that the community agrees to. The main driving force for patient safety regulations has been an increased demand from the community. Although the community has good reasons to ensure their own safety in hospitals, the underlying and inevitable increase in associated costs has received little attention in the claim. However, in order for patient safety levels to increase, the community must also be prepared to bear an equitable share of these costs. Successive improvements in safety are generally associated with progressively higher costs for each increment of improvements gained [14]. Without knowing the actual costs of safety programs, it can be impossible to decide what measure is feasible within a constrained financial environment. At present, however, past estimates of the costs associated with programs for patient safety have had serious limitations; they have either mainly focused only on single programs for infection control such as education [15] and surveillance [16], or targeted material interventions [17]. Therefore there is scant data regarding the resources necessary to implement hospital-wide activities involving patient safety and infection control. To address this lack of data, this study aimed to perform a multi-centre cost analysis to assess the amount of financial resources that Japanese hospitals invest for patient safety activities. The main outcome measures were the volume and the monetary value of activities for patient safety and hospital infection control.
Section snippets
Study setting
Seven acute-care teaching hospitals in Japan participated in this study. We recruited hospitals located across distinct geographic regions in Japan, under various kinds of ownership (public sector, healthcare corporations, and company). All were hospitals with an established reputation for their efforts to improve patient safety and infection control. In most cases, the individuals interviewed were department managers of patient safety and infection control. When necessary, we also interviewed
Results
Of eight hospitals referred, seven hospitals were included in this study. All sites were tertiary referral centres with bed numbers ranging from 300 to 1100 and more than 100,000 inpatient-days per year (Table 2).
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first multi-centre study to provide a descriptive account of what hospitals are spending on hospital-wide programs for patient safety and infection control. One reason for the lack of previous literature on the subject is the difficulty in defining the scope and estimating the costs of hospital-wide activities for patient safety. By using the incremental concept, we were able to estimate the costs of patient safety. Because a major turning point in
Conclusions
This study provides critical insights into the amount of financial resources used by hospitals for patient safety. To estimate the cost of patient safety and infection control activities, we developed a framework to survey hospital-wide activities by use of an incremental activity measure between 1999 and 2004. Although there are currently few financial incentives for prevention for patient safety within Japan's current reimbursement system, our study findings suggest that the total amount of
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the staff at the seven hospitals that participated in this study. This study was supported in part by a Grant-in-aid for Scientific Research A from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Scientific and Technology of Japan and the Health Sciences Research Grants for the Research on Policy Planning and Evaluation from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan.
References (45)
Patient safety: how much is enough?
Health Policy
(2005)- et al.
Cost-effectiveness of active surveillance cultures and contact/droplet precautions for control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Journal of Hospital Infection
(2002) - et al.
Considerations for a WHO European strategy on health-care-associated infection, surveillance, and control
Lancet Infectious Diseases
(2005) - et al.
How can we improve the quality of health care in Japan? Learning from JCQHC Hospital accreditation
Health Policy
(2003) - et al.
Making the business case for patient safety
Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Safety
(2003) To err is human: building a safer health system
(2000)An organization with a memory
(2000)- Kouseishou Kokuji 21st (21st Announcement by Ministry of Welfare). Kanpo (Public Newsletter). Gogai 1996;50:3–27 [in...
- Kouseishou Kokuji 66th (66th Announcement by Ministry of Welfare). Kanpo (Public Newsletter). Gogai 2000;51:1–105 [in...
- Kouseishou Shorei 7th (7th Ministerial Ordinance by Ministry of Welfare). Kanpo (Public Newsletter). 2000;2798:2–3 [in...
Tracking progress in patient safety: an elusive target
Journal of the American Medical Association
Accidental deaths, saved lives, and improved quality
New England Journal of Medicine
Five years after to err is human: what have we learned?
Journal of the American Medical Association
Planning, and controlling quality costs
Effect of an education program aimed at reducing the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia
Critical Care Medicine
The efficiency of infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in United States hospitals
American Journal of Epidemiology
Guideline for infection control in healthcare personnel, 1998
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
Cited by (7)
Patient Safety Activity Under the Social Insurance Medical Fee Schedule in Japan: An Overview of the 2010 Nationwide Survey
2021, Journal of Patient SafetyProcess value of care safety: Women's willingness to pay for perinatal services
2017, International Journal for Quality in Health CareOccurrence of occupational accidents involving potentially contaminated biological material among nurses
2014, ACTA Paulista de EnfermagemEconomic evaluation in patient safety: A literature review of methods
2012, BMJ Quality and SafetyPatient Safety: An Engineering Approach
2011, Patient Safety: An Engineering ApproachImpact of system-level activities and reporting design on the number of incident reports for patient safety
2010, Quality and Safety in Health Care