内科护理点超声检查 (POCUS) 与住院时间、住院费用和正式成像的关系:一项前瞻性队列研究。

POCUS journal Pub Date : 2023-11-27 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.24908/pocus.v8i2.16791
David M Tierney, Terry K Rosborough, Lynn M Sipsey, Kai Hanson, Claire S Smith, Lori L Boland, Robert Miner
{"title":"内科护理点超声检查 (POCUS) 与住院时间、住院费用和正式成像的关系:一项前瞻性队列研究。","authors":"David M Tierney, Terry K Rosborough, Lynn M Sipsey, Kai Hanson, Claire S Smith, Lori L Boland, Robert Miner","doi":"10.24908/pocus.v8i2.16791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) use has rapidly expanded among internal medicine (IM) physicians in practice and residency training programs. Many benefits have been established; however, studies demonstrating the impact of POCUS on system metrics are few and mostly limited to the emergency department or intensive care setting. The study objective was to evaluate the impact of inpatient POCUS on patient outcomes and hospitalization metrics. <b>Methods:</b> Prospective cohort study of 12,399 consecutive adult admissions to 22 IM teaching attendings, at a quaternary care teaching hospital (7/1/2011-6/30/2015), with or without POCUS available during a given hospitalization. Multivariable regression and propensity score matching (PSM) analyses compared multiple hospital metric outcomes (costs, length of stay, radiology-based imaging, satisfaction, etc.) between the \"POCUS available\" vs. \"POCUS unavailable\" groups as well as the \"POCUS available\" subgroups of \"POCUS used\" vs. \"POCUS not used\". <b>Results:</b> Patients in the \"POCUS available\" vs. \"POCUS unavailable\" group had lower mean total and per-day hospital costs ($17,474 vs. $21,803, p<0.001; $2,805.88 vs. $3,557.53, p<0.001), lower total and per-day radiology cost ($705.41 vs. $829.12, p<0.001; $163.11 vs. $198.53, p<0.001), fewer total chest X-rays (1.31 vs. 1.55, p=0.01), but more chest CTs (0.22 vs 0.15; p=0.001). Mean length of stay (LOS) was 5.77 days (95% CI = 5.63, 5.91) in the \"POCUS available\" group vs. 6.08 95% CI (5.66, 6.51) in the \"POCUS unavailable\" group (p=0.14). Within the \"POCUS available\" group, cost analysis with a 4:1 PSM (including LOS as a covariate) compared patients receiving POCUS vs. those that could have but did not, and also showed total and per-day cost savings in the \"POCUS used\" subgroup ($15,082 vs. 15,746; p<0.001 and $2,685 vs. $2,753; p=0.04). <b>Conclusions:</b> Availability and selected use of POCUS was associated with a meaningful reduction in total hospitalization cost, radiology cost, and chest X-rays for hospitalized patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":74470,"journal":{"name":"POCUS journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10721304/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Association of Internal Medicine Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) with Length of Stay, Hospitalization Costs, and Formal Imaging: a Prospective Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"David M Tierney, Terry K Rosborough, Lynn M Sipsey, Kai Hanson, Claire S Smith, Lori L Boland, Robert Miner\",\"doi\":\"10.24908/pocus.v8i2.16791\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) use has rapidly expanded among internal medicine (IM) physicians in practice and residency training programs. Many benefits have been established; however, studies demonstrating the impact of POCUS on system metrics are few and mostly limited to the emergency department or intensive care setting. The study objective was to evaluate the impact of inpatient POCUS on patient outcomes and hospitalization metrics. <b>Methods:</b> Prospective cohort study of 12,399 consecutive adult admissions to 22 IM teaching attendings, at a quaternary care teaching hospital (7/1/2011-6/30/2015), with or without POCUS available during a given hospitalization. Multivariable regression and propensity score matching (PSM) analyses compared multiple hospital metric outcomes (costs, length of stay, radiology-based imaging, satisfaction, etc.) between the \\\"POCUS available\\\" vs. \\\"POCUS unavailable\\\" groups as well as the \\\"POCUS available\\\" subgroups of \\\"POCUS used\\\" vs. \\\"POCUS not used\\\". <b>Results:</b> Patients in the \\\"POCUS available\\\" vs. \\\"POCUS unavailable\\\" group had lower mean total and per-day hospital costs ($17,474 vs. $21,803, p<0.001; $2,805.88 vs. $3,557.53, p<0.001), lower total and per-day radiology cost ($705.41 vs. $829.12, p<0.001; $163.11 vs. $198.53, p<0.001), fewer total chest X-rays (1.31 vs. 1.55, p=0.01), but more chest CTs (0.22 vs 0.15; p=0.001). Mean length of stay (LOS) was 5.77 days (95% CI = 5.63, 5.91) in the \\\"POCUS available\\\" group vs. 6.08 95% CI (5.66, 6.51) in the \\\"POCUS unavailable\\\" group (p=0.14). Within the \\\"POCUS available\\\" group, cost analysis with a 4:1 PSM (including LOS as a covariate) compared patients receiving POCUS vs. those that could have but did not, and also showed total and per-day cost savings in the \\\"POCUS used\\\" subgroup ($15,082 vs. 15,746; p<0.001 and $2,685 vs. $2,753; p=0.04). <b>Conclusions:</b> Availability and selected use of POCUS was associated with a meaningful reduction in total hospitalization cost, radiology cost, and chest X-rays for hospitalized patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74470,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"POCUS journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10721304/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"POCUS journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24908/pocus.v8i2.16791\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"POCUS journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pocus.v8i2.16791","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:护理点超声波(POCUS)在内科(IM)医师的实践和住院医师培训项目中得到了迅速推广。然而,能证明 POCUS 对系统指标影响的研究却很少,而且大多局限于急诊科或重症监护环境。本研究旨在评估住院患者 POCUS 对患者预后和住院指标的影响。方法:前瞻性队列研究对一家四级医疗教学医院的 22 位 IM 教学主治医师连续收治的 12,399 名成人进行前瞻性队列研究(2011 年 1 月 7 日至 2015 年 6 月 30 日),在特定住院期间是否提供 POCUS。多变量回归和倾向得分匹配 (PSM) 分析比较了 "可用 POCUS "组与 "不可用 POCUS "组,以及 "可用 POCUS "的 "使用 POCUS "与 "未使用 POCUS "的亚组之间的多项医院指标结果(费用、住院时间、放射成像、满意度等)。结果POCUS可用 "组与 "POCUS不可用 "组患者的平均住院总费用和每天住院费用均较低(17,474美元对21,803美元,p结论:"POCUS可用 "组与 "POCUS不可用 "组患者的平均住院总费用和每天住院费用均较低:POCUS 的可用性和选择性使用与住院患者住院总费用、放射科费用和胸部 X 光检查费用的显著降低有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Association of Internal Medicine Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) with Length of Stay, Hospitalization Costs, and Formal Imaging: a Prospective Cohort Study.

Background: Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) use has rapidly expanded among internal medicine (IM) physicians in practice and residency training programs. Many benefits have been established; however, studies demonstrating the impact of POCUS on system metrics are few and mostly limited to the emergency department or intensive care setting. The study objective was to evaluate the impact of inpatient POCUS on patient outcomes and hospitalization metrics. Methods: Prospective cohort study of 12,399 consecutive adult admissions to 22 IM teaching attendings, at a quaternary care teaching hospital (7/1/2011-6/30/2015), with or without POCUS available during a given hospitalization. Multivariable regression and propensity score matching (PSM) analyses compared multiple hospital metric outcomes (costs, length of stay, radiology-based imaging, satisfaction, etc.) between the "POCUS available" vs. "POCUS unavailable" groups as well as the "POCUS available" subgroups of "POCUS used" vs. "POCUS not used". Results: Patients in the "POCUS available" vs. "POCUS unavailable" group had lower mean total and per-day hospital costs ($17,474 vs. $21,803, p<0.001; $2,805.88 vs. $3,557.53, p<0.001), lower total and per-day radiology cost ($705.41 vs. $829.12, p<0.001; $163.11 vs. $198.53, p<0.001), fewer total chest X-rays (1.31 vs. 1.55, p=0.01), but more chest CTs (0.22 vs 0.15; p=0.001). Mean length of stay (LOS) was 5.77 days (95% CI = 5.63, 5.91) in the "POCUS available" group vs. 6.08 95% CI (5.66, 6.51) in the "POCUS unavailable" group (p=0.14). Within the "POCUS available" group, cost analysis with a 4:1 PSM (including LOS as a covariate) compared patients receiving POCUS vs. those that could have but did not, and also showed total and per-day cost savings in the "POCUS used" subgroup ($15,082 vs. 15,746; p<0.001 and $2,685 vs. $2,753; p=0.04). Conclusions: Availability and selected use of POCUS was associated with a meaningful reduction in total hospitalization cost, radiology cost, and chest X-rays for hospitalized patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Application of Point of Care Ultrasound to Screen for Pulmonary Hypertension: A Narrative Review VExUS to Guide Ultrafiltration in Hemodialysis: Exploring a Novel Dimension of Point of Care Ultrasound Best Practices for Point of Care Ultrasound: An Interdisciplinary Expert Consensus Return of the Living Dead Gut – A Case Report of Ischemic Colitis Identified on Point of Care Ultrasound Emergency Physician Performed Ultrasound-Guided Abdominal Paracentesis: A Retrospective Analysis
×
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