Comparison of Hospitalization and Post-Hospitalization Outcomes among Family Medicine Hospitalists and Internal Medicine Hospitalists in a Tertiary Center: A Prospective Cohort Study

Moaath K. Mustafa Ali, S. Mustafa, M. Sabha, M. Banifadel, K. Aburayyan, M. Awad, M. Ghanim, A. Ramahi, Z. Nesheiwat
{"title":"Comparison of Hospitalization and Post-Hospitalization Outcomes among Family Medicine Hospitalists and Internal Medicine Hospitalists in a Tertiary Center: A Prospective Cohort Study","authors":"Moaath K. Mustafa Ali, S. Mustafa, M. Sabha, M. Banifadel, K. Aburayyan, M. Awad, M. Ghanim, A. Ramahi, Z. Nesheiwat","doi":"10.58877/japaj.v1i1.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: There is a lack of studies comparing hospitalization and post-hospitalization outcomes between internal medicine (IM) hospitalists and family medicine (FM) hospitalists.  \nObjective: To compare the length of stay (LOS), hospital cost, and 30-day all-cause readmission rate among patients treated by IM hospitalists and FM hospitalists.   \nDesign and Setting: Prospective cohort study in a referral center. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline characteristics between comparative arms. \nParticipants: 747 patients 18 years and older who were admitted to hospitalist services. \nIntervention: Treatment by IM hospitalists and FM hospitalists. \nMain Measures:  LOS, hospital cost, and 30-day all-cause readmission. Treatment arms were compared by two methods. We compared patients who were seen by FM exclusively with those treated exclusively by IM services. Covariate adjusted differences in outcomes were estimated by multivariable regression. For a secondary set of analyses, exposure to FM and IM was converted to a continuous independent variable. \nKey Results: Forty, 333, and 374 patients were seen by FM, IM, and a combination of both services, respectively. Using average treatment on the treated as the estimand, FM care provided a shorter weight-adjusted LOS by 0.5 days (CI: -0.92- -0.04, P =0.026) compared to IM, but no difference in hospital cost (-126, CI: -906-653, P=.74).  There was no difference in adjusted hazard for 30-day readmission between FM and IM (HR: 2, CI: 0.67-6.2, P =0.062). Propensity weight-adjusted multiple regression models of the complete cohort (n=747) did not show any difference in any outcomes with increased exposure to FM care.  \nConclusions: Understanding variation in practices and outcomes between different hospitalist models opens opportunities to improve care and decrease the length of stay.","PeriodicalId":364383,"journal":{"name":"JAP Academy Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAP Academy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58877/japaj.v1i1.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is a lack of studies comparing hospitalization and post-hospitalization outcomes between internal medicine (IM) hospitalists and family medicine (FM) hospitalists.  Objective: To compare the length of stay (LOS), hospital cost, and 30-day all-cause readmission rate among patients treated by IM hospitalists and FM hospitalists.   Design and Setting: Prospective cohort study in a referral center. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline characteristics between comparative arms. Participants: 747 patients 18 years and older who were admitted to hospitalist services. Intervention: Treatment by IM hospitalists and FM hospitalists. Main Measures:  LOS, hospital cost, and 30-day all-cause readmission. Treatment arms were compared by two methods. We compared patients who were seen by FM exclusively with those treated exclusively by IM services. Covariate adjusted differences in outcomes were estimated by multivariable regression. For a secondary set of analyses, exposure to FM and IM was converted to a continuous independent variable. Key Results: Forty, 333, and 374 patients were seen by FM, IM, and a combination of both services, respectively. Using average treatment on the treated as the estimand, FM care provided a shorter weight-adjusted LOS by 0.5 days (CI: -0.92- -0.04, P =0.026) compared to IM, but no difference in hospital cost (-126, CI: -906-653, P=.74).  There was no difference in adjusted hazard for 30-day readmission between FM and IM (HR: 2, CI: 0.67-6.2, P =0.062). Propensity weight-adjusted multiple regression models of the complete cohort (n=747) did not show any difference in any outcomes with increased exposure to FM care.  Conclusions: Understanding variation in practices and outcomes between different hospitalist models opens opportunities to improve care and decrease the length of stay.
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
某三级医疗中心家庭医学住院医师与内科住院医师住院和住院后结局的比较:一项前瞻性队列研究
背景:目前缺乏比较内科(IM)和家庭医学(FM)住院医师住院和住院后结局的研究。目的:比较IM和FM住院患者的住院时间(LOS)、住院费用和30天全因再入院率。设计与环境:转诊中心的前瞻性队列研究。倾向评分匹配用于平衡比较组之间的基线特征。参与者:747名18岁及以上住院治疗的患者。干预:IM医院和FM医院的治疗。主要措施:LOS、住院费用、30天全因再入院。两种方法对治疗组进行比较。我们比较了只接受FM治疗的患者和只接受IM治疗的患者。通过多变量回归估计经协变量调整后的结果差异。对于第二组分析,暴露于FM和IM被转换为一个连续的独立变量。主要结果:FM、IM和两种服务的结合分别治疗了40例、333例和374例患者。以被治疗者的平均治疗作为估计,FM护理比IM提供了更短的0.5天的体重调整LOS (CI: -0.92- -0.04, P= 0.026),但在医院费用方面没有差异(-126,CI: -906-653, P= 0.74)。调频组与调频组30天再入院调整危险度无差异(HR: 2, CI: 0.67-6.2, P =0.062)。整个队列(n=747)的倾向权重调整多元回归模型未显示FM护理暴露增加的任何结果有任何差异。结论:了解不同医院模式之间实践和结果的差异,为改善护理和缩短住院时间提供了机会。
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
Intensive Care Unit-Acquired Weakness in Pediatrics: A Literature Review Autoimmune encephalitis in Intensive Care Unit: A Review Article Gynecological and Obstetric Crisis in Gaza Conflict Area: A Call for Action Economic analysis of rural health in the USA- suggested solutions for the market A 5-year old male with cyanosis: A case report of an unusual association with SARS-cov-2 antibodies
×
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