诊断确定性与医院资源利用。

J R Lave, R A Bankowitz, P Hughes-Cromwick, N B Giuse
{"title":"诊断确定性与医院资源利用。","authors":"J R Lave,&nbsp;R A Bankowitz,&nbsp;P Hughes-Cromwick,&nbsp;N B Giuse","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether the house staff's subjective probability estimates of their initial admitting diagnoses are independent predictors of in-hospital resource consumption.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Descriptive correlational study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Academic medical center inpatient setting.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Patients admitted to general medicine wards.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>A visual analog scale with hash marks at 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100 was used to obtain a subjective probability estimate that the house staff's initial admitting diagnosis was a correct diagnosis. This provided the measure of diagnostic \"certainty\" at the time of admission. Patient demographic data, prior hospital stays, distance from hospital, MedisGroups scores, outlier status and vital status at discharge were obtained from administrative systems. Length of stay, total charges, cost estimates (total departmental), and number of consultations were obtained from the hospital-based transaction master database.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>House staff evaluated 1,778 admissions, 77.2% were assigned a diagnostic certainty rating of 75% or higher. In univariate analysis, the certainty rating did not vary with the MedisGroups score, outlier status or vital status at discharge. It varied with prior stays and measures of resource use. In multivariate analysis, the certainty rating was a significant factor accounting for variation in each of the measures of resource utilization with the exception of adjusted pharmacy charges.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Even in a teaching hospital only a small proportion of patients had an \"uncertain\" diagnosis (22.8%). Nonetheless, the certainty variables were significantly related to measures of resource consumption including length of stay, total costs and number of consults obtained.</p>","PeriodicalId":79858,"journal":{"name":"Cost & quality quarterly journal : CQ","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic certainty and hospital resource use.\",\"authors\":\"J R Lave,&nbsp;R A Bankowitz,&nbsp;P Hughes-Cromwick,&nbsp;N B Giuse\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether the house staff's subjective probability estimates of their initial admitting diagnoses are independent predictors of in-hospital resource consumption.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Descriptive correlational study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Academic medical center inpatient setting.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Patients admitted to general medicine wards.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>A visual analog scale with hash marks at 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100 was used to obtain a subjective probability estimate that the house staff's initial admitting diagnosis was a correct diagnosis. This provided the measure of diagnostic \\\"certainty\\\" at the time of admission. Patient demographic data, prior hospital stays, distance from hospital, MedisGroups scores, outlier status and vital status at discharge were obtained from administrative systems. Length of stay, total charges, cost estimates (total departmental), and number of consultations were obtained from the hospital-based transaction master database.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>House staff evaluated 1,778 admissions, 77.2% were assigned a diagnostic certainty rating of 75% or higher. In univariate analysis, the certainty rating did not vary with the MedisGroups score, outlier status or vital status at discharge. It varied with prior stays and measures of resource use. In multivariate analysis, the certainty rating was a significant factor accounting for variation in each of the measures of resource utilization with the exception of adjusted pharmacy charges.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Even in a teaching hospital only a small proportion of patients had an \\\"uncertain\\\" diagnosis (22.8%). Nonetheless, the certainty variables were significantly related to measures of resource consumption including length of stay, total costs and number of consults obtained.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79858,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cost & quality quarterly journal : CQ\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cost & quality quarterly journal : CQ\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cost & quality quarterly journal : CQ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨住院部工作人员对初次入院诊断的主观概率估计是否为院内资源消耗的独立预测因子。设计:描述性相关研究。设置:学术医疗中心住院设置。病人:住在普通内科病房的病人。测量方法:使用带有0、25、50、75和100的散列标记的视觉模拟量表来获得院舍工作人员最初的入院诊断是正确诊断的主观概率估计。这提供了入院时诊断“确定性”的测量。患者人口统计数据、住院时间、离医院的距离、MedisGroups评分、离群值和出院时的生命体征均来自管理系统。从基于医院的事务主数据库中获得住院时间、总收费、成本估算(整个部门)和会诊次数。结果:医院工作人员评估了1778名入院者,77.2%的诊断确定性评分为75%或更高。在单变量分析中,确定性评分不随MedisGroups评分、异常状态或出院时的生命状态而变化。它因先前的停留时间和资源使用措施而异。在多变量分析中,除了调整后的药房收费外,确定性评级是每个资源利用指标变化的重要因素。结论:即使在教学医院,也只有一小部分患者的诊断“不确定”(22.8%)。尽管如此,确定性变量与包括住院时间、总费用和获得的咨询次数在内的资源消耗措施显著相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Diagnostic certainty and hospital resource use.

Objective: To determine whether the house staff's subjective probability estimates of their initial admitting diagnoses are independent predictors of in-hospital resource consumption.

Design: Descriptive correlational study.

Setting: Academic medical center inpatient setting.

Patients: Patients admitted to general medicine wards.

Measurements: A visual analog scale with hash marks at 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100 was used to obtain a subjective probability estimate that the house staff's initial admitting diagnosis was a correct diagnosis. This provided the measure of diagnostic "certainty" at the time of admission. Patient demographic data, prior hospital stays, distance from hospital, MedisGroups scores, outlier status and vital status at discharge were obtained from administrative systems. Length of stay, total charges, cost estimates (total departmental), and number of consultations were obtained from the hospital-based transaction master database.

Results: House staff evaluated 1,778 admissions, 77.2% were assigned a diagnostic certainty rating of 75% or higher. In univariate analysis, the certainty rating did not vary with the MedisGroups score, outlier status or vital status at discharge. It varied with prior stays and measures of resource use. In multivariate analysis, the certainty rating was a significant factor accounting for variation in each of the measures of resource utilization with the exception of adjusted pharmacy charges.

Conclusions: Even in a teaching hospital only a small proportion of patients had an "uncertain" diagnosis (22.8%). Nonetheless, the certainty variables were significantly related to measures of resource consumption including length of stay, total costs and number of consults obtained.

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
From paper charts to the spoken electronic medical record. Contact capitation for specialists. What to do if you're behind on your payroll taxes. Kansas ruling threatens peer review. Adams v. St. Francis Medical Center. Civil rights claims and physician peer review.
×
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