{"title":"急诊再入院率是一个有效的结果指标吗?","authors":"G C Leng, D Walsh, F G Fowkes, C P Swainson","doi":"10.1136/qshc.8.4.234","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The principal aim was to determine whether the emergency readmission rate varies between medical specialties, and to identify whether differences in emergency readmission rates between hospital trusts can be reduced by standardising for specialty. Possible factors influencing emergency readmission were also investigated, including frequency of previous admission and cause of readmission.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Emergency readmission rates were obtained from the Scottish Morbidity Record scheme (SMR1) using record linkage, standardised for age and sex. Rates throughout Scotland were analysed by specialty, and rates for general medicine compared among teaching hospital trusts. Cause of emergency readmission was determined from hospital records in a random sample (177 patients).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Medical specialties throughout Scotland.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>All patients readmitted as an emergency within 28 days of discharge (October 1990 to September 1994).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Emergency readmissions varied markedly between medical specialties, with highest rates in nephrology (24.2%, 95% CI 23.5 to 24.8) and haematology (20.4%, 95% CI 19.9 to 20.9), and the lowest in homeopathy (2.2%, 95% CI 1.6 to 2.7) and metabolic diseases (3.5%, 95% CI 2.4 to 4.5). The largest number of emergency readmissions was in general medicine, accounting for 63% of the total. Restricting emergency readmission rates to general medicine significantly altered previous rates. In the year preceding the emergency readmission, 59% of all patients had been admitted to hospital at least once, and most emergency readmissions (73.3%) resulted from a chronic underlying condition.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Significant variations in emergency readmission rates occurred between medical specialties, suggesting that differences between hospital trusts are influenced by differences in specialties and thus case mix. The majority of emergency readmissions occurred in patients with an underlying chronic condition, and many had a history of multiple previous hospital admissions. The emergency readmission rate is therefore unlikely to be a valid outcome indicator reflecting quality of care until routine data are available for standardisation by case mix.</p>","PeriodicalId":20773,"journal":{"name":"Quality in health care : QHC","volume":"8 4","pages":"234-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/qshc.8.4.234","citationCount":"29","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is the emergency readmission rate a valid outcome indicator?\",\"authors\":\"G C Leng, D Walsh, F G Fowkes, C P Swainson\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/qshc.8.4.234\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The principal aim was to determine whether the emergency readmission rate varies between medical specialties, and to identify whether differences in emergency readmission rates between hospital trusts can be reduced by standardising for specialty. Possible factors influencing emergency readmission were also investigated, including frequency of previous admission and cause of readmission.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Emergency readmission rates were obtained from the Scottish Morbidity Record scheme (SMR1) using record linkage, standardised for age and sex. Rates throughout Scotland were analysed by specialty, and rates for general medicine compared among teaching hospital trusts. Cause of emergency readmission was determined from hospital records in a random sample (177 patients).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Medical specialties throughout Scotland.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>All patients readmitted as an emergency within 28 days of discharge (October 1990 to September 1994).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Emergency readmissions varied markedly between medical specialties, with highest rates in nephrology (24.2%, 95% CI 23.5 to 24.8) and haematology (20.4%, 95% CI 19.9 to 20.9), and the lowest in homeopathy (2.2%, 95% CI 1.6 to 2.7) and metabolic diseases (3.5%, 95% CI 2.4 to 4.5). The largest number of emergency readmissions was in general medicine, accounting for 63% of the total. Restricting emergency readmission rates to general medicine significantly altered previous rates. In the year preceding the emergency readmission, 59% of all patients had been admitted to hospital at least once, and most emergency readmissions (73.3%) resulted from a chronic underlying condition.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Significant variations in emergency readmission rates occurred between medical specialties, suggesting that differences between hospital trusts are influenced by differences in specialties and thus case mix. The majority of emergency readmissions occurred in patients with an underlying chronic condition, and many had a history of multiple previous hospital admissions. The emergency readmission rate is therefore unlikely to be a valid outcome indicator reflecting quality of care until routine data are available for standardisation by case mix.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20773,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality in health care : QHC\",\"volume\":\"8 4\",\"pages\":\"234-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/qshc.8.4.234\",\"citationCount\":\"29\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality in health care : QHC\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.8.4.234\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality in health care : QHC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.8.4.234","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 29
摘要
目的:主要目的是确定急诊再入院率在医学专科之间是否存在差异,并确定是否可以通过专科标准化来减少医院信托之间急诊再入院率的差异。还调查了影响急诊再入院的可能因素,包括先前入院的频率和再入院的原因。设计:使用记录链接从苏格兰发病率记录计划(SMR1)中获得急诊再入院率,并根据年龄和性别进行标准化。整个苏格兰的比率按专业进行了分析,并比较了教学医院信托的一般医学比率。从随机抽样(177例患者)的医院记录中确定紧急再入院的原因。环境:苏格兰各地的医学专业。对象:所有患者出院后28天内(1990年10月至1994年9月)作为急诊再次入院。结果:不同医学专业的急诊再入院率差异显著,肾病科(24.2%,95% CI 23.5 ~ 24.8)和血液科(20.4%,95% CI 19.9 ~ 20.9)的再入院率最高,顺势疗法(2.2%,95% CI 1.6 ~ 2.7)和代谢疾病(3.5%,95% CI 2.4 ~ 4.5)的再入院率最低。急诊再入院人数最多的是普通医学,占总数的63%。限制急诊再入院率到普通医学显著改变了以前的比率。在紧急再入院前一年,59%的患者至少住院一次,大多数紧急再入院(73.3%)是由慢性基础疾病引起的。结论:急诊再入院率在医学专科之间存在显著差异,表明医院信任的差异受到专科差异的影响,从而影响病例组合。大多数急诊再入院发生在有潜在慢性疾病的患者中,许多患者有多次住院史。因此,急诊再入院率不太可能是反映护理质量的有效结果指标,除非有按病例组合进行标准化的常规数据。
Is the emergency readmission rate a valid outcome indicator?
Objectives: The principal aim was to determine whether the emergency readmission rate varies between medical specialties, and to identify whether differences in emergency readmission rates between hospital trusts can be reduced by standardising for specialty. Possible factors influencing emergency readmission were also investigated, including frequency of previous admission and cause of readmission.
Design: Emergency readmission rates were obtained from the Scottish Morbidity Record scheme (SMR1) using record linkage, standardised for age and sex. Rates throughout Scotland were analysed by specialty, and rates for general medicine compared among teaching hospital trusts. Cause of emergency readmission was determined from hospital records in a random sample (177 patients).
Setting: Medical specialties throughout Scotland.
Subjects: All patients readmitted as an emergency within 28 days of discharge (October 1990 to September 1994).
Results: Emergency readmissions varied markedly between medical specialties, with highest rates in nephrology (24.2%, 95% CI 23.5 to 24.8) and haematology (20.4%, 95% CI 19.9 to 20.9), and the lowest in homeopathy (2.2%, 95% CI 1.6 to 2.7) and metabolic diseases (3.5%, 95% CI 2.4 to 4.5). The largest number of emergency readmissions was in general medicine, accounting for 63% of the total. Restricting emergency readmission rates to general medicine significantly altered previous rates. In the year preceding the emergency readmission, 59% of all patients had been admitted to hospital at least once, and most emergency readmissions (73.3%) resulted from a chronic underlying condition.
Conclusions: Significant variations in emergency readmission rates occurred between medical specialties, suggesting that differences between hospital trusts are influenced by differences in specialties and thus case mix. The majority of emergency readmissions occurred in patients with an underlying chronic condition, and many had a history of multiple previous hospital admissions. The emergency readmission rate is therefore unlikely to be a valid outcome indicator reflecting quality of care until routine data are available for standardisation by case mix.