Advertisement

Health Care Management Science

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 157–164 | Cite as

Output congestion leads to compromised care in Peruvian public hospital neonatal units

Article

Abstract

Peru is moving toward a universal health insurance system, and it is facing important challenges in the provision of public health services. As more citizens gain access to health insurance, the flow of patients exceeds the capacity of public hospitals to provide care with quality. In this study we explore the relationship between technical efficiency and patient safety events in neonatal care units of Peru’s public hospitals. We use Data Envelope Analysis (DEA) with output congestion to assess the association between technical efficiency and patient safety events. We study 35 neonatal care units of public hospitals in Peru’s Social Security Health System, and identify two undesirable (risk-adjusted) safety outcomes: neonatal mortality and near-miss neonatal mortality. We found that for about half of hospital’s neonatal care units, technical efficiency is affected by output congestion. For those hospitals, patient safety is being compromised by receiving too many patients. Our results are consistent with public reports indicating that hospitals in the Peru’s Social Security Health System are overcrowded, affecting efficiency and jeopardizing quality of care. We found that most congested hospitals are located in the capital city and suburban areas, and are more likely to be hospitals with the lowest and the highest level of care. Our results call for improvements in the patient referral system and capacity expansion.

Keywords

Hospital efficiency DEA Neonatal care units Peru 

Abbreviations

DEA

Data Envelope Analysis

WHO

World Health Organization

UNICEF

United Nations Children’s Fund

ESSALUD

Peru’s Social Security Health System

PSS

Perinatal Surveillance System

NCU

Neonatal Care Unit

MoH

Ministry of Health

DHS

Demographical Health Surveys

APGAR

Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity, and Respiration

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Consorcio de Investigación Económica y Social, and anonymous reviewers of this manuscript. 

Authors’ contributions

AA contributed to the study design, acquisition of data, analysis and manuscript writing. JG contributed with DEA estimation, literature review and manuscript writing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This study received expedited IRB approval by the IUPUI / Clarian Institutional Review Board (Protocol number 1010002619). All administrative data provided by ESSALUD was de-identified.

Competing interests

The study is part of a larger research project funded by the Consorcio de Investigación Económica y Social (CIES). The authors assure the absence of competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Savedoff WD, de Ferranti D, Smith AL, Fan V (2012) Political and economic aspects of the transition to universal health coverage. Lancet 380(9845):924–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lancet T (2012) The struggle for universal health coverage. Lancet 380(9845):859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kacak H, Ozcan YA, Kavuncubasi S (2014) A new examination of hospital performance after healthcare reform in Turkey: sensitivity and quality comparisons. Int J Publ Policy 10(4–5):178–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ozcan YA, Lins ME, Lobo MSC, Da Silva ACM, Fiszman R, Pereira BB (2010) Evaluating the performance of Brazilian university hospitals. Ann Oper Res 178(1):247–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rego G, Nunes R, Costa J (2010) The challenge of corporatisation: the experience of Portuguese public hospitals. Eur J Health Econ 11(4):367–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Djema H, Djerdjouri M (2012) A two-stage DEA with partial least squares regression model for performance analysis in healthcare in Algeria. Int J Appl Decis Sci 5(2)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    UNICEF (2008) The State of The World’s Children 2009: Maternal and Newborn Health. In. United Nations Children’s Fund, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mangiaterra V, Mattero M, Dunkelberg E (2006) Why and how to invest in neonatal health. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 11(1):37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lawn JE, Cousens S, Zupan J (2005) 4 Million neonatal deaths: when? where? why? Lancet 365(9462):891–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gwatkin DR, Rutstein S, Johnson K, Suliman E, Wagstaff A, Amouzou A (2007) Socio-economic differences in health, nutrition, and population. The World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ozcan YA (2014) Health care benchmarking and performance evaluation: an assessment using Data Envelopment Analysis (Dea), vol 210. Springer, NewtonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    O’Neill L, Rauner M, Heidenberger K, Kraus M (2008) A cross-national comparison and taxonomy of DEA-based hospital efficiency studies. Socio Econ Plan Sci 42(3):158–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nayar P, Ozcan Y (2008) Data envelopment analysis comparison of hospital efficiency and quality. J Med Syst 32(3):193–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hollingsworth B (2003) Non-parametric and parametric applications measuring efficiency in health care. Health Care Manag Sci 6(4):203–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Valdmanis VG, Rosko MD, Mutter RL (2008) Hospital quality, efficiency, and input slack differentials. Health Serv Res 43(5p2):1830–1848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clement J, Valdmanis V, Bazzoli G, Zhao M, Chukmaitov A (2008) Is more better? An analysis of hospital outcomes and efficiency with a DEA model of output congestion. Health Care Manag Sci 11(1):67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Masiye F (2007) Investigating health system performance: an application of data envelopment analysis to Zambian hospitals. BMC Health Serv Res 7(1):58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hu H-H, Qi Q, Yang C-H (2012) Evaluation of China’s regional hospital efficiency: DEA approach with undesirable output. J Oper Res Soc 63(6):715–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hollingsworth B, Parkin D (2001) The efficiency of the delivery of neonatal care in the UK. J Public Health 23(1):47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Field K, Emrouznejad A (2003) Measuring the performance of neonatal care units in Scotland. J Med Syst 27(4):315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bacak S, Baptiste-Roberts K, Amon E, Ireland B, Leet T (2005) Risk factors for neonatal mortality among extremely-low-birth-weight infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192(3):862–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Forssas E, Gissler M, Sihvonen M, Hemminki E (1999) Maternal predictors of perinatal mortality: the role of birthweight. Int J Epidemiol 28(3):475–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mahlmeister LR (2006) Best practices in perinatal care: reporting “Near Misses” and “Good Catches” as a risk reduction strategy. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs 20(3):197–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2(6):429–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fare R, Grosskopf S, Lovell CK (1994) Production frontiers. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuntz L, Sülz S (2011) Modeling and notation of DEA with strong and weak disposable outputs. Health Care Manag Sci 14(4):385–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ganley J, Cubbin J (1992) Public sector efficiency measurement: applications of data envelopment analysis. Elsevier Science Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Grosskopf S, Valdmanis V (1993) Evaluating hospital performance with case-mix-adjusted outputs. Med Care 31(6):525–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Iezzoni L (2003) Risk adjustment for measuring health care outcomes, 3 edn. Health Administration PressGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Allison P (2001) Missing data. Sage, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Arrieta A, Riesco G (2009) Risk factors for perinatal mortality in Peruvian Social Security Hospitals: using the data of the Perinatal Surveillance System of ESSALUD. Anales de la Facultad de Medicina 70(4):241–246 [Spanish].Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Arroyo A (2013) Daily chaos takes over the hospital network ESSALUD. In: Peru 21. A12 [Spanish]Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ramos C (2013) Overcrowding and queues at ESSALUD : Doctors care for 200 patients per day. In: Diario Correo. A8 [Spanish]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Robert Stempel College of Public HealthFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Graduate School of BusinessESANLima 33Peru

Personalised recommendations