The impact of pathways: a significant decrease in mortality

M. Panella
{"title":"The impact of pathways: a significant decrease in mortality","authors":"M. Panella","doi":"10.1258/jicp.2009.009007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study was undertaken to determine how care pathways (CPs) in the hospital treatment of heart failure (HF) affected in-hospital mortality, and outcomes at discharge. A two-arm, cluster randomized trial was conducted. Fourteen community hospitals were randomized either to arm 1 (CPs) or to arm 2 (no intervention, usual care). A sample size of 424 patients (212 in each group) was used in order to have 80% of power at the 5% significance level (two-sided). The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were also evaluated. In-hospital mortality was 5.6% in the experimental arm and 15.4% in the controls (P = 0.001). In CP and usual care groups, the mean rates of unscheduled readmissions were 7.9% and 13.9%, respectively. Adjusting for age, smoking, New York Heart Association (NYHA) score, hypertension and source of referral, patients in the CP group, as compared with controls, had a significantly lower risk of in-hospital death (odds ratio [OR] = 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07–0.46) and unscheduled readmissions (OR = 0.42; CI = 0.20–0.87). No differences were found between CP and control with respect to the appropriateness of the stay, costs and patient's satisfaction. This paper examines the evaluation of a complex intervention and adds evidence to previous knowledge, indicating that CP should be used to improve the quality of hospital treatment of HF.","PeriodicalId":114083,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Care Pathways","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Care Pathways","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1258/jicp.2009.009007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This study was undertaken to determine how care pathways (CPs) in the hospital treatment of heart failure (HF) affected in-hospital mortality, and outcomes at discharge. A two-arm, cluster randomized trial was conducted. Fourteen community hospitals were randomized either to arm 1 (CPs) or to arm 2 (no intervention, usual care). A sample size of 424 patients (212 in each group) was used in order to have 80% of power at the 5% significance level (two-sided). The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were also evaluated. In-hospital mortality was 5.6% in the experimental arm and 15.4% in the controls (P = 0.001). In CP and usual care groups, the mean rates of unscheduled readmissions were 7.9% and 13.9%, respectively. Adjusting for age, smoking, New York Heart Association (NYHA) score, hypertension and source of referral, patients in the CP group, as compared with controls, had a significantly lower risk of in-hospital death (odds ratio [OR] = 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07–0.46) and unscheduled readmissions (OR = 0.42; CI = 0.20–0.87). No differences were found between CP and control with respect to the appropriateness of the stay, costs and patient's satisfaction. This paper examines the evaluation of a complex intervention and adds evidence to previous knowledge, indicating that CP should be used to improve the quality of hospital treatment of HF.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
道路的影响:死亡率显著降低
本研究旨在确定心力衰竭(HF)住院治疗中的护理途径(CPs)如何影响住院死亡率和出院结果。进行了一项双组随机试验。14家社区医院被随机分配到第1组(CPs)或第2组(无干预,常规护理)。样本量为424例(每组212例),以便在5%显著性水平(双侧)下具有80%的有效性。主要结局指标为住院死亡率。次要结果也进行了评估。住院死亡率实验组为5.6%,对照组为15.4% (P = 0.001)。在常规护理组和常规护理组,计划外再入院的平均比率分别为7.9%和13.9%。调整年龄、吸烟、纽约心脏协会(NYHA)评分、高血压和转诊来源等因素后,与对照组相比,CP组患者住院死亡风险显著降低(优势比[OR] = 0.18;95%可信区间[CI]: 0.07-0.46)和计划外再入院(OR = 0.42;Ci = 0.20-0.87)。在住院适宜性、费用和患者满意度方面,CP组和对照组之间没有差异。本文探讨了一种复杂干预措施的评价,并为以往的知识增加了证据,表明CP应用于提高心衰的医院治疗质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Developing a clinical pathway for non-invasive ventilation Effects of care pathways in Dutch child and adolescent mental health care: a preliminary study Lean Thinking and Six Sigma: proven techniques in industry. Can they help health care? Care pathways for prostate cancer The impact of health policy: the extreme case of Abruzzo, Italy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1