Impact of nursing home admission on in-hospital mortality and morbidity and length of stay: A case-control analysis

IF 0.6 Q4 SURGERY Surgery in practice and science Pub Date : 2024-03-27 DOI:10.1016/j.sipas.2024.100243
Claudio Canal , Anne-Sophie Mittlmeier , Valentin Neuhaus , Hans-Christoph Pape , Mathias Schlögl
{"title":"Impact of nursing home admission on in-hospital mortality and morbidity and length of stay: A case-control analysis","authors":"Claudio Canal ,&nbsp;Anne-Sophie Mittlmeier ,&nbsp;Valentin Neuhaus ,&nbsp;Hans-Christoph Pape ,&nbsp;Mathias Schlögl","doi":"10.1016/j.sipas.2024.100243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We examined a quality measurement database containing de-identified cases from across Switzerland. All patients with a complete dataset treated between 2015 and 2021 were included. A case-control matching method (same age, comorbidity, sex, diagnosis, admission type, and insurance coverage) was used to evaluate the impact of pre-admission residence. The outcomes measured included complications during hospitalization, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay. Statistical significance was set at a p-value of &lt;0.001 due to our large size of analyzed cases.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We noted a higher prevalence of comorbidities and higher ASA scores among the 2130 (1.9 %) patients admitted from long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Complication rates in the LTCF group were higher than those in the home group (15 % vs. 6.9 %, <em>p</em> = &lt;0.001). Pneumonia was the most frequent complication in both groups. The in-hospital mortality rate was also significantly higher in the LTCF group than the home group (5.8 % vs. 1.1 %, <em>p</em> = &lt;0.001). However, matched-pair analysis showed no significant difference in complication rates and overall mortality between the two groups. Patients admitted from LTCFs even had a shorter hospital stay (7.5 ± 8.7 days vs. 8.9 ± 7.9 days, <em>p</em> = &lt;0.004).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Despite higher complication and mortality rates among LTCF patients, the matched-pair analysis showed no significant differences in these rates between the two groups. However, patients from LTCFs were discharged earlier, indicating the effectiveness of Switzerland's care system for older adults living in nursing homes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74890,"journal":{"name":"Surgery in practice and science","volume":"17 ","pages":"Article 100243"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266626202400010X/pdfft?md5=dd3de3c847b126c1e6b6d000e3f9c42f&pid=1-s2.0-S266626202400010X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery in practice and science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266626202400010X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Methods

We examined a quality measurement database containing de-identified cases from across Switzerland. All patients with a complete dataset treated between 2015 and 2021 were included. A case-control matching method (same age, comorbidity, sex, diagnosis, admission type, and insurance coverage) was used to evaluate the impact of pre-admission residence. The outcomes measured included complications during hospitalization, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay. Statistical significance was set at a p-value of <0.001 due to our large size of analyzed cases.

Results

We noted a higher prevalence of comorbidities and higher ASA scores among the 2130 (1.9 %) patients admitted from long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Complication rates in the LTCF group were higher than those in the home group (15 % vs. 6.9 %, p = <0.001). Pneumonia was the most frequent complication in both groups. The in-hospital mortality rate was also significantly higher in the LTCF group than the home group (5.8 % vs. 1.1 %, p = <0.001). However, matched-pair analysis showed no significant difference in complication rates and overall mortality between the two groups. Patients admitted from LTCFs even had a shorter hospital stay (7.5 ± 8.7 days vs. 8.9 ± 7.9 days, p = <0.004).

Conclusions

Despite higher complication and mortality rates among LTCF patients, the matched-pair analysis showed no significant differences in these rates between the two groups. However, patients from LTCFs were discharged earlier, indicating the effectiveness of Switzerland's care system for older adults living in nursing homes.

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
入住疗养院对院内死亡率、发病率和住院时间的影响:病例对照分析
方法我们研究了一个质量测量数据库,其中包含来自瑞士各地的去身份化病例。所有在 2015 年至 2021 年期间接受过治疗且拥有完整数据集的患者均被纳入其中。采用病例对照匹配法(相同的年龄、合并症、性别、诊断、入院类型和保险范围)来评估入院前居住地的影响。测量的结果包括住院期间的并发症、院内死亡率和住院时间。由于分析的病例较多,统计显著性的P值设定为<0.001。结果我们发现,在2130名(1.9%)从长期护理机构(LTCF)入院的患者中,合并症发生率较高,ASA评分也较高。长期护理机构组的并发症发生率高于家庭组(15% 对 6.9%,P = 0.001)。肺炎是两组中最常见的并发症。LTCF 组的院内死亡率也明显高于家庭组(5.8% 对 1.1%,p = 0.001)。不过,配对分析显示,两组患者的并发症发生率和总死亡率没有明显差异。结论尽管 LTCF 患者的并发症发生率和死亡率较高,但配对分析显示两组患者的并发症发生率和死亡率无明显差异。不过,来自 LTCF 的患者出院时间更早,这表明瑞士的护理系统对居住在养老院的老年人非常有效。
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
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
38 days
期刊最新文献
Emergency laparotomy preoperative risk assessment tool performance: A systematic review Letter to the Editor on “The pulmonary contusion score: Development of asimple scoring system for blunt lung injury” Prevalence and associated factors of acute postoperative pain in adult surgical patients: A prospective study Advances and results in omental patch repair of gastrointestinal perforations: A narrative review Practical evaluation of risk factors in patients with osteoporosis-induced thoracic and lumbar vertebral compression fractures requiring surgery
×
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