Health at a Glance 2021

Integrated care

Despite national efforts to facilitate transitions of care and improve interaction between providers, health systems remain fragmented when delivering care. Recent OECD work flags how poor integration undermines the full potential of health care (OECD, 2020[14]). This is especially true for those who transition between care settings with complex health conditions, such as mental illness (OECD, 2021[39]). Poor co‑ordination is also reported between health, long-term and social care (OECD, 2020[56]). These failures have been magnified by the COVID‑19 pandemic, with fragmented care between hospitals and community care damaging continuity of care and risking the delivery of safe care for the most vulnerable populations (OECD, 2020[57]).

Integrated care can improve patient outcomes and experiences. It also increases value for money by improving co‑ordination, while reducing duplicative and unnecessary care. OECD work has identified key mechanisms for improving integrated care: strengthening governance, developing strong information systems, building a skilled workforce and ensuring aligned financial incentives (OECD, 2017[17]).

Indicators such as mortality, readmissions and medication prescriptions after hospitalisation provide insight into the quality of integration between hospital and community care. Stroke and CHF indicators in the year following discharge can be calculated using patient-level hospital records linked to death registries and outpatient prescribing data. However, only three OECD countries (Czech Republic, Finland and Sweden) participating in the OECD pilot data collection on Integrated Care are presently able to link all the data sources for reporting prescription indicators, in addition to all the other indicators.

Figure 6.38 shows the mortality and readmissions outcomes across OECD countries in the year after discharge following ischaemic stroke or CHF in 2018. For patients who suffered an ischaemic stroke, on average, 64% survived and did not return to acute care, 22% survived and were readmitted to hospital (4% for stroke‑related and 18% for other reasons) and 14% died in the following year. For CHF patients, on average, 45% who survived did not return to acute care, while 32% survived but were readmitted for CHF related or other causes and 23% died in the following year.

For patients who suffered a stroke and were discharged, 1‑year mortality ranged from 2% in Japan to 25% in Estonia. For CHF patients, 1‑year mortality varied from 8% in Japan to 33% in Slovenia. 1‑year readmissions of stroke patients surviving one year or more ranged from 1% in Italy to 6% in Norway for stroke‑related reasons, and from 0% in Costa Rica to 28% in the Czech Republic for non-stroke causes. For patients with CHF surviving one year or more, readmission rates varied from 1% in Italy to 17% in Israel for CHF-related causes and from 0% in Costa Rica to 29% in the Czech Republic for other causes.

Trend analysis can identify changes over time, such as improvements in mortality and readmission rates. Data for 2013‑18 are shown for the percentage of discharged stroke and CHF patients readmitted or dying in the year following discharge either for any cause (Figure 6.39) or for the primary diagnosis (Figure 6.40). Most countries demonstrated small improvements over a five‑year period. Costa Rica, Sweden and Israel demonstrated the largest improvements for reducing 1‑year readmissions and mortality following an ischaemic stroke, and Costa Rica, Sweden, Japan and Israel for CHF. Similar declines can be seen for 30‑day case fatality rates for ischaemic stroke (see indicator “Mortality following ischaemic stroke”). However, some countries reported worsening rates, including Lithuania, Norway and Finland.

Variation in outcomes across countries can be partly explained by differences in the organisation of care delivery, and differences in access to care, payment mechanisms and information systems. For example, Estonia adopted a new person-centred care network model and Finland defined a new governance model of financing, organisation and information to drive integration of health and social care.

Definition and comparability

The OECD piloted the collection of integrated care indicators to support the international comparison of performance for patients discharged from hospital with ischaemic stroke or CHF. Outcome indicators are calculated for people aged 15 and over at the day of admission presenting with an acute non-elective (urgent) episode of care for a first-time event of ischaemic stroke or CHF. A first-time event is defined among people with no disease‑specific hospital admission in the previous five years. Countries applied this “washout” period except the Czech Republic (which only used the first event of primary diagnosis) and Japan (which used a one‑year washout). These variations affect the construction of the patient cohort, hinder the possibility of tracing persons who have a history of repeated hospitalisations and reduce data comparability.

All countries use patient unique identifiers. For all countries data are nationally representative, except for Japan. Japan uses a network of providers representing 30% of hospitalisations and only identifies hospital readmissions within this network thus limiting data comparability with other countries. Patient unique identifiers link hospital data (with information on the type and date of admission and discharge and diagnoses) with death registries and with prescribing databases. Definitions of acute urgent care vary across countries. Most countries define acute urgent care as hospital admission via emergency/unplanned care (Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, Israel, Italy, Norway, Slovenia and Sweden) or curative care (Lithuania). Some countries (Estonia) exclude acute care related to rehabilitation, psychiatric or long-term care, or use diagnosis-related groups (Czech Republic) to identify acute episodes. As shown in Figure 6.11 and Figures 6.17‑18, CHF hospitalisations and ischaemic stroke mortality demonstrate substantial variability between countries. Caution is advised when making direct comparison between countries using these metrics. See Barrenho et al. (forthcoming[58]) for further analyses.

Figure 6.38. Patient outcomes within one year of discharge after ischaemic stroke and congestive heart failure, 2018

Source: OECD HCQO Pilot Data Collection on Integrated Care 2021.

Statlink

Figure 6.39. Patients readmitted or dying due to any cause within one year of discharge after stroke and congestive heart failure, 2013‑18 (or nearest year)

Note: Data labels report relative percentage change, 2013‑18. 2013 OECD average does not include data for Canada, Estonia and Slovenia.

Source: OECD HCQO Pilot Data Collection on Integrated Care 2021.

Statlink

Figure 6.40. Patients readmitted or dying due to the primary diagnosis within one year of discharge after stroke and congestive heart failure, 2013‑18 (or nearest year)

Note: Data labels report relative percentage change, 2013‑18. 2013 OECD average does not include data for Canada, Estonia and Slovenia.

Source: OECD HCQO Pilot Data Collection on Integrated Care 2021.

Statlink

References

[9] Al-Aly, Z., Y. Xie and B. Bowe (2021), “High-dimensional characterization of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19”, Nature, Vol. 594/7862, pp. 259-264, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03553-9.

[48] Allemani, C. et al. (2018), “Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000–14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries”, The Lancet, Vol. 391/10125, pp. 1023-1075, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)33326-3.

[45] Bargon, C. (2021), “Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patient-Reported Outcomes of Breast Cancer Patients and Survivors”, JNCI Cancer Spectrum, Vol. 5/1, p. pkaa104, https://doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkaa104.

[58] Barrenho et al. (forthcoming), “Methodological development of indicators for international comparison of integrated care: findings of a pilot on stroke and chronic heart failure”, OECD Health Working Papers, OECD Publishing, Paris.

[29] Bersano, A. et al. (2020), “Stroke care during the COVID‐19 pandemic: experience from three large European countries”, European Journal of Neurology, Vol. 27/9, pp. 1794-1800, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ene.14375.

[15] CDC (2021), Certain Medical Conditions and Risk for Severe COVID-19 Illness, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html (accessed on 8 July 2021).

[7] CDC (2021), Measles Cases and Outbreaks, https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html (accessed on 7 July 2021).

[22] Chudasama, Y. et al. (2020), “Impact of COVID-19 on routine care for chronic diseases: A global survey of views from healthcare professionals”, Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, Vol. 14/5, pp. 965-967, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2020.06.042.

[21] Collins, F. (2021), How COVID-19 Can Lead to Diabetes – NIH Director’s Blog, National Institutes of Health, https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/08/how-covid-19-can-lead-to-diabetes/ (accessed on 7 July 2021).

[46] Dave, R. (2021), “Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK “Alert Level 4” phase of the B-MaP-C study”, British Journal of Cancer, Vol. 124/11, pp. 1785-1794, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-01234-4.

[36] de Bienassis, K. et al. (2020), “Culture as a cure: Assessments of patient safety culture in OECD countries”, OECD Health Working Papers, No. 119, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/6ee1aeae-en.

[41] de Bienassis, K. et al. (2021), “Measuring patient voice matters: setting the scene for patient-reported indicators”, International Journal for Quality in Health Care, Vol. 33/1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzab002.

[54] Di Carlo, V. et al. (2020), “Trends in short-term survival from distant-stage cutaneous melanoma in the United States, 2001-2013 (CONCORD-3)”, JNCI Cancer Spectrum, Vol. 4/6, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkaa078.

[50] European Commission (2017), Cancer Screening in Report on the implementation of the Council Recommendation on cancer screening, https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/major_chronic_diseases/docs/2017_cancerscreening_2ndreportimplementation_en.pdf (accessed on 24 June 2019).

[12] Fujisawa, R. and N. Klazinga (2017), “Measuring patient experiences (PREMS): Progress made by the OECD and its member countries between 2006 and 2016”, OECD Health Working Papers, No. 102, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/893a07d2-en.

[34] G20 Health & Development Partnership (2021), The Overlooked Pandemic: How to Transform Patient Safety and Save Healthcare Systems, https://www.ssdhub.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/1863-Sovereign-Strategy-Patient-Safetly-Report-1.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2021).

[3] Gallup (2021), Over 1 Billion Worldwide Unwilling to Take COVID-19 Vaccine, https://news.gallup.com/poll/348719/billion-unwilling-covid-vaccine.aspx (accessed on 8 July 2021).

[2] Gallup (2019), Is There an Outbreak of Doubt About Vaccines in the U.S.?, https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/259574/outbreak-doubt-vaccines.aspx (accessed on 8 July 2021).

[53] GLOBOCAN (2020), International Agency for Research on Cancer, Global Cancer Observatory, Cancer Today, https://gco.iarc.fr/today/home.

[26] Holmes, J. et al. (2020), “Emergency ambulance services for heart attack and stroke during UK’s COVID-19 lockdown”, The Lancet, Vol. 395/10237, pp. e93-e94, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31031-x.

[55] Intergruppo Melanoma Italiano (2021), “The effect of COVID-19 emergency in the management of melanoma in Italy”, Dermatology Reports, Vol. 13/1, http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/dr.2021.8972.

[18] International Diabetes Federation (2020), IDF Diabetes Atlas Ninth edition 2019.

[52] Ivanuš, U. et al. (2021), “The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on organised cervical cancer screening: The first results of the Slovenian cervical screening programme and registry”, The Lancet Regional Health - Europe, Vol. 5, p. 100101, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100101.

[27] Little, C. et al. (2020), “COVID-19 pandemic and STEMI: pathway activation and outcomes from the pan-London heart attack group”, Open Heart, Vol. 7/2, p. e001432, http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2020-001432.

[25] Martínez-Sánchez, C. et al. (2017), “Reperfusion therapy of myocardial infarction in Mexico: A challenge for modern cardiology”, Archivos de Cardiología de México, Vol. 87/2, pp. 144-150, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acmx.2016.12.007.

[19] Muniyappa, R. and S. Gubbi (2020), “COVID-19 pandemic, coronaviruses, and diabetes mellitus”, American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vol. 318/5, pp. E736-E741, http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/ajpendo.00124.2020.

[44] NABON COVID-19 Consortium and the COVID and Cancer-NL Consortium (2021), “Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnosis, stage, and initial treatment of breast cancer in the Netherlands: a population-based study”, Journal of Hematology & Oncology, Vol. 14/1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13045-021-01073-7.

[40] OECD (2021), A New Benchmark for Mental Health Systems: Tackling the Social and Economic Costs of Mental Ill-Health, OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/4ed890f6-en.

[5] OECD (2021), “Access to COVID-19 vaccines: Global approaches in a global crisis”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c6a18370-en.

[4] OECD (2021), “Enhancing public trust in COVID-19 vaccination: The role of governments”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eae0ec5a-en.

[13] OECD (2021), Patient-Reported Indicators Surveys (PaRIS), OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/health/paris.htm (accessed on 26 June 2019).

[6] OECD (2021), “Strengthening the frontline: How primary health care helps health systems adapt during the COVID-19 pandemic”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a5ae6da-en.

[39] OECD (2021), “Tackling the mental health impact of the COVID-19 crisis: An integrated, whole-of-society response”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0ccafa0b-en.

[14] OECD (2020), Realising the Potential of Primary Health Care, OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/a92adee4-en.

[56] OECD (2020), “Who Cares? Attracting and Retaining Care Workers for the Elderly”, OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/92c0ef68-en.

[57] OECD (2020), “Workforce and safety in long-term care during the COVID-19 pandemic”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/43fc5d50-en.

[8] OECD (2019), Addressing Problematic Opioid Use in OECD countries, OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a18286f0-en.

[30] OECD (2019), “Measuring what matters for people-centred health systems”, in Health at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/4bbba455-en.

[38] OECD (2019), Patient-Reported Safety Indicators: Question Set and Data Collection Guidance, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/Patient-reported-incident-measures-December-2019.pdf.

[10] OECD (2018), Stemming the Superbug Tide: Just A Few Dollars More, OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264307599-en.

[17] OECD (2017), Caring for Quality in Health: Lessons Learnt from 15 Reviews of Health Care Quality, OECD Reviews of Health Care Quality, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264267787-en.

[11] OECD (2017), Tackling Wasteful Spending on Health, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264266414-en.

[23] OECD (2015), Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes: Policies for Better Health and Quality of Care, OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264233010-en.

[28] OECD (2015), OECD Reviews of Health Care Quality: Japan 2015: Raising Standards, OECD Reviews of Health Care Quality, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264225817-en.

[43] OECD (2013), Cancer Care: Assuring Quality to Improve Survival, OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264181052-en.

[31] OECD (forthcoming), Findings of the OECD Working Group on Patient-Reported Indicators for Hip and Knee Replacement Surgery: Technical report on data collected from 2018-2021, OECD, Paris.

[37] OECD (forthcoming), Safety in numbers: Quantifying health worker perceptions of patient safety culture in OECD countries, OECD Publishing, Paris.

[42] OECD (forthcoming), “Standards for Assessing Patient Outcomes and Experiences of Mental Health Care in OECD Countries: Findings of the PaRIS Mental Health Working Group Pilot Data Collection”, OECD Health Working Papers, OECD Publishing, Paris.

[24] OECD/The King’s Fund (2020), Is Cardiovascular Disease Slowing Improvements in Life Expectancy?: OECD and The King’s Fund Workshop Proceedings, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/47a04a11-en.

[49] Pusic, A. et al. (2009), “Development of a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Breast Surgery: The BREAST-Q”, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Vol. 124/2, pp. 345-353, http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e3181aee807.

[47] Regionala Cancercentrum I Samverkan (2021), Statistik om uppskjuten cancervård till följd av coronaviruset, https://cancercentrum.se/samverkan/covid-19/uppskjuten-cancervard.

[16] Rey et al., J. (2020), “Heart failure in COVID‐19 patients: prevalence, incidence and prognostic implications”, European Journal of Heart Failure, Vol. 22/12, pp. 2205-2215, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.1990.

[20] Singh, A. et al. (2020), “Diabetes in COVID-19: Prevalence, pathophysiology, prognosis and practical considerations”, Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, Vol. 14/4, pp. 303-310, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2020.04.004.

[33] Slawomirski, L., A. Auraaen and N. Klazinga (2017), “The economics of patient safety: Strengthening a value-based approach to reducing patient harm at national level”, OECD Health Working Papers, No. 96, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5a9858cd-en.

[32] Van Hout, B. et al. (2012), “Interim Scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: Mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L Value Sets”, Value in Health, Vol. 15/5, pp. 708-715, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.JVAL.2012.02.008.

[35] WHO (2021), Global Patient Safety Action Plan 2021-2030, World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/teams/integrated-health-services/patient-safety/policy/global-patient-safety-action-plan (accessed on 2 June 2021).

[51] WHO (2021), WHO Immunization Data portal, World Health Organization, https://immunizationdata.who.int/listing.html?topic=incidence&location=Global (accessed on 15 July 2021).

[1] WHO (2019), Global Influenza Strategy 2019-2030, World Health Organization, https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/311184.