[Less surgery and lower cost due to back pain in a care program with an interdisciplinary second opinion procedure : A controlled non-randomized intervention study based on claims data]. / Weniger Operationen und Kosten wegen Rückenschmerzen in einem Versorgungsprogramm mit interdisziplinärem Zweitmeinungsverfahren : Eine kontrollierte, nichtrandomisierte Interventionsstudie mit GKV-Daten.

BACKGROUND: There is no evidence of effectiveness for interdisciplinary second opinion procedures (ISOP) for recommended back surgery (BS). Since 2015, AOK Nordost has been offering the care program RückenSPEZIAL comprising a preliminary examination, ISOP, and optional interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy (IMPT). The objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness of RückenSPEZIAL to reduce BS and back pain-related costs (BPRC) compared to patients who likewise received a recommendation for back surgery but not RückenSPEZIAL. METHODS: Insured persons in the AOK Nordost consulted the AOK service center, presented a BS hospital admission slip and received advice to participate in RückenSPEZIAL. Following a 1:1 "matched pairs" selection, patients who participated in RückenSPEZIAL (intervention group [IG]) after this consultation (reference date) where compared with patients who did not participate after this consultation (comparison group [CG]). Patient characteristics, BS and BPRC were operationalised from AOK Nordost claims data. RESULTS: Of 108 IG patients and 108 CG patients, 34 (42%) fewer IG patients had one or more BS in 365 following days (relative risk [RR] 0.58; p < 0.001). The subgroup analysis showed for 21 IG patients with ISOP and IMPT an RR of 0.13 (p < 0.001), and for 67 IG patients with solely ISOP without IMPT an RR of 0.59 (p < 0.001). The increase in RBC from the previous year to the following year was 50.2 percentage points lower for IG patients compared to CG patients (p = 0.088). DISCUSSION: The differences in BS were significant (p < 0.05) and in favor of RückenSPEZIAL. For the specific population it can be expected that mainly savings on BS can cover the intervention costs of RückenSPEZIAL (approximately significant, small case number). Bias due to self-selection needs to be assumed.

Chief complaints in medical emergencies: do they relate to underlying disease and outcome? The Charité Emergency Medicine Study (CHARITEM).

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationship between chief complaints and their underlying diseases and outcome in medical emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: All 34 333 patients who attended two of the EDs of the Charité Berlin over a 1-year period were included in the analysis. Data were retrieved from the hospital information system. For study purposes, the chief complaint (chest pain, dyspnoea, abdominal pain, headache or 'none of these symptoms') was prospectively documented in an electronic file by the ED-physician. Documentation was mandatory. RESULTS: The majority of patients (66%) presented with 'none of these symptoms', 11.5% with chest pain, 11.1% with abdominal pain and 7.4% with dyspnoea. In total, 39.4% of all patients were admitted to the hospital. The leading diagnosis was acute coronary syndrome (50.7%) for chest pain in-patients and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (16.5%) and heart failure (16.1%) for in-patients with dyspnoea. The causes of abdominal pain in in-patients were of diverse gastrointestinal origin (47.2%). In-hospital mortality of in-patients was 4.7%. Patients with chest pain had significantly lower in-hospital mortality (0.9%) than patients with dyspnoea (9.4%) and abdominal pain (5.1%). CONCLUSION: The majority of emergency patients lack diagnosis-specific symptoms. Chief complaints help preselect patients but must not be mistaken as disease specific. Mortality largely differs depending on the chief complaint. In chest pain patients, standardized processes may be one factor that explains the low mortality in this group.