Finn Diderichsen

Publications of Finn Diderichsen

• Increasing work-time influence: consequences for flexibility, variability, regularity and predictability.

  Authors: Kirsten Nabe-Nielsen, Anne Helene Garde, Birgit Aust, Finn Diderichsen

  Ergonomics. 04/2012; 55(4):440-9.

  This quasi-experimental study investigated how an intervention aiming at increasing eldercare workers' influence on their working hours affected the flexibility, variability, regularity andThis quasi-experimental study investigated how an intervention aiming at increasing eldercare workers' influence on their working hours affected the flexibility, variability, regularity and predictability of the working hours. We used baseline (n = 296) and follow-up (n = 274) questionnaire data and interviews with intervention-group participants (n = 32). The work units in the intervention group designed their own intervention comprising either implementation of computerised self-scheduling (subgroup A), collection of information about the employees' work-time preferences by questionnaires (subgroup B), or discussion of working hours (subgroup C). Only computerised self-scheduling changed the working hours and the way they were planned. These changes implied more flexible but less regular working hours and an experience of less predictability and less continuity in the care of clients and in the co-operation with colleagues. In subgroup B and C, the participants ended up discussing the potential consequences of more work-time influence without actually implementing any changes. Practitioner Summary: Employee work-time influence may buffer the adverse effects of shift work. However, our intervention study suggested that while increasing the individual flexibility, increasing work-time influence may also result in decreased regularity of the working hours and less continuity in the care of clients and co-operation with colleagues.

• Something is amiss in Denmark: a comparison of preventable hospitalisations and readmissions for chronic medical conditions in the Danish Healthcare system and Kaiser Permanente.

  Authors: Michaela Schiøtz, Mary Price, Anne Frølich, Jes Søgaard, Jette K Kristensen, Allan Krasnik, Murray N Ross, Finn Diderichsen, John Hsu

  BMC health services research. 12/2011; 11:347.

  As many other European healthcare systems the Danish healthcare system (DHS) has targeted chronic condition care in its reform efforts. Benchmarking is a valuable tool to identify areas forAs many other European healthcare systems the Danish healthcare system (DHS) has targeted chronic condition care in its reform efforts. Benchmarking is a valuable tool to identify areas for improvement. Prior work indicates that chronic care coordination is poor in the DHS, especially in comparison with care in Kaiser Permanente (KP), an integrated delivery system based in the United States. We investigated population rates of hospitalisation and readmission rates for ambulatory care sensitive, chronic medical conditions in the two systems. Using a historical cohort study design, age and gender adjusted population rates of hospitalisations for angina, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and hypertension, plus rates of 30-day readmission and mortality were investigated for all individuals aged 65+ in the DHS and KP. DHS had substantially higher rates of hospitalisations, readmissions, and mean lengths of stay per hospitalisation, than KP had. For example, the adjusted angina hospitalisation rates in 2007 for the DHS and KP respectively were 1.01/100 persons (95%CI: 0.98-1.03) vs. 0.11/100 persons (95%CI: 0.10-0.13/100 persons); 21.6% vs. 9.9% readmission within 30 days (OR = 2.53; 95% CI: 1.84-3.47); and mean length of stay was 2.52 vs. 1.80 hospital days. Mortality up through 30 days post-discharge was not consistently different in the two systems. There are substantial differences between the DHS and KP in the rates of preventable hospitalisations and subsequent readmissions associated with chronic conditions, which suggest much opportunity for improvement within the Danish healthcare system. Reductions in hospitalisations also could improve patient welfare and free considerable resources for use towards preventing disease exacerbations. These conclusions may also apply for similar public systems such as the US Medicare system, the NHS and other systems striving to improve the integration of care for persons with chronic conditions.

• A Retrospective Analysis of Health Systems in Denmark and Kaiser Permanente.

  Authors: Anne Frolich, Michaela Schiotz, Martin Strandberg-Larsen, John Hsu, Allan Krasnik, Finn Diderichsen, Jim Bellows, Jes Sogaard, Karen White

  BMC health services research. 01/2009; 8(1):252.

  ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: To inform Danish health care reform efforts, we compared health care system inputs and performance and assessed the usefulness of these comparisons for informing policy.ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: To inform Danish health care reform efforts, we compared health care system inputs and performance and assessed the usefulness of these comparisons for informing policy. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of secondary data in the Danish Health Care System (DHS) with 5.3 million citizens and the Kaiser Permanente integrated delivery system (KP) with 6.1 million members in California. We used secondary data to compare population characteristics, professional staff, delivery structure, utilisation and quality measures, and direct costs. We adjusted the cost data to increase comparability. RESULTS: A higher percentage of KP patients had chronic conditions than did patients in the DHS: 6.3% vs. 2.8% (diabetes) and 19% vs. 8.5% (hypertension), respectively. KP had fewer total physicians and staff compared to DHS, with134 physicians/100,000 individuals versus 311 physicians/100,000 individuals. KP physicians are salaried employees; in contrast, DHS primary care physicians own and run their practices, remunerated by a mixture of capitation and fee-for-service payments, while most specialists are employed at largely public hospitals. Hospitalisation rates and lengths of stay (LOS) were lower in KP, with mean acute admission LOS of 3.9 days versus 6.0 days in the DHS, and, for stroke admissions, 4.2 days versus 23 days. Screening rates also differed: 93% of KP members with diabetes received retinal screening; only 46% of patients in the DHS with diabetes did. Per capita operating expenditures were PPP$1,951 (KP) and PPP $1,845 (DHS). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the DHS, KP had a population with more documented disease and higher operating costs, while employing fewer physicians and resources like hospital beds. Observed quality measures also appear higher in KP. However, simple comparisons between health care systems may have limited value without detailed information on mechanisms underlying differences or identifying translatable care improvement strategies. We suggest items for more in-depth analyses that could improve the interpretability of findings and help identify lessons that can be transferred.