Ambulatory care sensitive diseases/conditions in adult patients. A systematic review

Aim. To summarize the published data on the nomenclature of ambu­latory care sensitive diseases/conditions (ACSCs) in adult patients as one of the tools for a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of primary health care (PHC) measures implemented.

Material and methods. The study was implemented in 4 following stages: 1 — search for articles by keywords in electronic bibliographic databases; 2 — duplicate elimination; 3 — review of abstracts with an as­sessment for compliance with the inclusion/exclusion criteria, fol­lowed by a search for full-text versions and final selection of pub­lications; 4 — systematization and analysis of data on the ACSCs. Articles published in the period from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2022 and containing information on ACSC nomenclature were searched in 4 domestic and foreign electronic bibliographic databases (Elibrary, NLM (PubMed), MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE). The PRISMA (Preferred Re­porting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) system was used in the preparation of the systematic review. Systematization of information on the obtained results was carried out in Microsoft Office Excel 2016 spreadsheets.

Results. In total, out of 10898 initially found publications, 11 full-text pa­pers describing studies that fully met the inclusion/exclusion criteria we­re admitted to stage 4 and were included in the final analysis. In none of the 11 publications was ACSC nomenclature identical to any other pub­lication included in stage 4 of the analysis. Variability in the total num­ber of ACSCs was noted in each of the assessed papers. In 100% of the analyzed publications, the NCAs included chronic obstructive pul­monary disease/chronic bronchitis, heart failure, diabetes, and hypertension. In 91% (10 publications), the ACSCs included angina pectoris, asthma, iron deficiency anemia, dental and oral diseases, urinary tract infections, acute skin infections, and gastroenteritis.

Conclusion. The nomenclature of the ACSCs in different countries is characterized by variability due to demographic, epidemiological, organizational, and other features. The conducted systematic review showed that the nomenclature of the ACSCs has not been defined in the Russian Federation. The data obtained in this work can serve as a basis for initiating a project aimed at developing a domestic nomenclature of ACSCs as one of the tools for a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of PHC measures implemented.

1. Billings J, Zeitel L, Lukomnik J, et al. Impact of socioeconomic status on hospital use in New York City. Health Aff. 1993;12(1):162–73. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.12.1.162.

2. Caminal J, Mundet X, Ponsa JA, et al. Las hospitalizaciones por ambulatory care sensitive conditions: selección del listado de codigos de diagnostico validos para Espana. Gac Sanit. 2001;15(2):128–41. doi:10.1016/S0213-9111(01)71532-4.

3. Caminal J, Starfield B, Sanchez E, et al. The role of primary care in preventing ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Eur J Public Health. 2004;14(3):246–51. doi:10.1093/eurpub/14.3.246.

4. Purdy S, Griffin T, Salisbury C, et al. Ambulatory care sensitive conditions: terminology and disease coding need to be more specific to aid policy makers and clinicians. Public Health. 2009;123(2):169-73. doi10.1016/j.puhe.2008.11.001.

5. Brown A, Goldacre M, Hicks N, et al. Hospitalization for ambulatory care sensitive conditions: a method for comparative access and quality studies using routinely collected statistics. Can J Public Heal. 2001;92(2):155–9. doi:10.1007/BF03404951.

6. Page A, Ambrose S, Glover J, et al. Atlas of avoidable Hospitalisations in Australia: ambulatory care-sensitive conditions. University of Adelaide; 2007.

7. Alfradique ME, Bonolo PDF, Dourado I, et al. Internacoes por condiçoes sensiveis a atençao primaria: a construçao da lista brasileira como ferramenta para medir o desempenho do sistema de saude (Projeto ICSAP – Brasil). Cad Saude Publica. 2009;25(6):1337–1349. doi:10.1590/S0102-311X2009000600016.

8. Freund T, Campbell S, Geissler S, et al. Strategies for reducing potentially avoidable hospitalizations for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(4):363–70. doi:10.1370/afm.1498.

9. Sundmacher L, Fischbach D, Schuettig W, et al. Which hospitalisations are ambulatory care-sensitive, to what degree, and how could the rates be reduced? Results of a group consensus study in Germany. Health Policy (New York). 2015;119(11):1415–23. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.08.007.

10. Nedel FB, Facchini LA, Bastos JL, et al. Conceptual and methodological aspects in the study of hospitalizations for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Cien Saude Colet. 2011;16(Suppl 1):1145–54. doi:10.1590/S1413-81232011000700046.

11. Solberg LI, Peterson KE, Ellis RW, et al. The Minnesota project: a focused approach to ambulatory quality. Inquiry. 1990;27(4):359–67.

12. Weissman JS, Gatsonis C, Epsein AM. Rates of avoidable hospitalization by insurance status in Massachusetts and Maryland. JAMA. 1992;268(17):2388–2394. doi: 10.1001/jama.1992.03490170060026.

13. Carinci F, Gool K, Mainz J, et al. Towards actionable international comparisons of health system performance: expert revision of the OECD framework and quality indicators. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2015;27(3):137–46. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzv004.

14. Gonzalez-Velez AE, Mejia CCC, Eduardo Low Padilla, et al. Ambulatory care sensitive conditions hospitalization for emergencies rates in Colombia. Rev Saude Publica. 2019;53:36. doi: 10.11606/S1518-8787.2019053000563.

15. Sarmento J., Rocha J.V.M., Santana R. Defining ambulatory care sensitive conditions for adults in Portugal. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2020;20:754. doi:10.1186/s12913-020-05620-9.

16. Eggli Y, Desquins B, Seker E, et al. Comparing potentially avoidable hospitalization rates related to ambulatory care sensitive conditions in Switzerland: the need to refine the definition of health conditions and to adjust for population health status. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;20;14:25. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-25.

17. Sheridan A, Howell F, Bedford D. Hospitalisations and costs relating to ambulatory care sensitive conditions in Ireland. Ir J Med Sci. 2012;181(4):527-533. doi:10.1007/s11845-012-0810-0.

18. Fleetcroft R, Hardcastle A, Steel N, et al. Does practice analysis agree with the ambulatory care sensitive conditions' list of avoidable unplanned admissions?: a cross-sectional study in the East of England. BMJ Open. 2018;8(4):e020756. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020756.

19. Weeks WB, Ventelou B, Paraponaris A. Rates of admission for ambulatory care sensitive conditions in France in 2009-2010: trends, geographic variation, costs, and an international comparison. Eur J Health Econ. 2016;17(4):453-470. doi:10.1007/s10198-015-0692-y.

20. Bardsley M, Blunt I, Davies S, et al. Is secondary preventive care improving? Observational study of 10-year trends in emergency admissions for conditions amenable to ambulatory care. BMJ Open. 2013;3(1):e002007. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002007.

21. Hone T, Rasella D, Barreto ML, et al. Association between expansion of primary healthcare and racial inequalities in mortality amenable to primary care in Brazil: A national longitudinal analysis. PLoS Med. 2017;14(5):e1002306. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002306.

22. Kisely S, Ehrlich C, Kendall E, et al. Using Avoidable Admissions to Measure Quality of Care for Cardiometabolic and Other Physical Comorbidities of Psychiatric Disorders: A Population-Based, Record-Linkage Analysis. Can J Psychiatry. 2015;60(11):497-506. doi: 10.1177/070674371506001105.

23. Ansari Z, Barbetti T, Carson NJ, et al. The Victorian ambulatory care sensitive conditions study: rural and urban perspectives. Soz Praventivmed. 2003;48(1):33–43. doi:10.1007/s000380300004.

24. Rosano A, De Belvis AG, Sferrazza A, et al. Trends in avoidable hospitalization rates in Italy, 2001-2008. Epidemiol Biostat Public Health. 2013;10(4) doi: 10.2427/8817.

25. Niti M, Ng TP. Avoidable hospitalisation rates in Singapore, 1991-1998: assessing trends and inequities of quality in primary care. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(1):17–22. https://jech.bmj.com/content/57/1/17.

26. Angulo-Pueyo E, Martinez-Lizaga N, Ridao-Lopez M, et al. Trend in potentially avoidable hospitalisations for chronic conditions in Spain. Gac Sanit. 2016;30(1):52–54. doi:10.1016/j.gaceta.2015.10.008.

27. Boing AF, Vicenzi RB, Magajewski F, et al. Reduction of ambulatory care sensitive conditions in Brazil between 1998 and 2009. Rev Saude Publica. 2012;46(2):359–366. doi:10.1590/S0034-89102012005000011.

28. Thygesen LC, Christiansen T, Garcia-Armesto S, et al, ECHO Consortium Potentially avoidable hospitalizations in five European countries in 2009 and time trends from 2002 to 2009 based on administrative data. Eur J Public Health. 2015;25:35–43. doi:10.1093/eurpub/cku227.

29. Dantas I, Santana R, Sarmento J, et al. The impact of multiple chronic diseases on hospitalizations for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):348. doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1584-2.

30. Menec VH, Sirski M, Attawar D, et al. Does continuity of care with a family physician reduce hospitalizations among older adults? J Heal Serv Res Policy. 2006;11(4):196–201. doi:10.1258/135581906778476562.