癌症患者急诊科就诊情况;单个社区癌症中心的数据分析

Meisenberg Barry, Rhule RN Jane, T. Jessica, Arvin Laura, Tameris Susanne
{"title":"癌症患者急诊科就诊情况;单个社区癌症中心的数据分析","authors":"Meisenberg Barry, Rhule RN Jane, T. Jessica, Arvin Laura, Tameris Susanne","doi":"10.46619/cmj.2019.2-1010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Cancer-related Emergency Department Visits (EDV) are costly and may indicate poor care. Most studies of cancer-related EDV identify patients using inclusive diagnostic codes but lack precision since they don’t distinguish active cancer. We compared estimates of oncology-related EDV made by diagnostic code methods to a more specific method followed by chart review. We also studied characteristics of validated EDV. Methods: EDV from cancer patients at a single acute care hospital were measured using any inclusive oncology codes and was compared to EDV made by patients who were active attendees at cancer clinics. We then reviewed the records of a 50% random sample of the ‘active’ patients to estimate how many were related to cancer or cancer treatment. Results: Over 5 months, 790 oncology-EDV were identified by coding, but only 554 (70%) were made by ‘active’ patients. After review, 29% of active patient EDV was determined not to be related to an oncology problem or treatment. 48% of EDV occurred during daytime clinic hours. 79% were preceded by one or more contacts with the oncology care team within a week. There was variability in the number of EDV by patients of different oncologists. Conclusion: The impact of cancer in overall EDV counts is over-estimated by coding because coding cannot distinguish between active and inactive cancer nor discriminate between symptoms likely due to unlikely due to cancer or cancer treatments. Cancer programs should study the experiences of their own patients to design effective programs to reduce potentially avoidable utilization.","PeriodicalId":72513,"journal":{"name":"Cancer medicine journal","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Emergency Department Visits made by Patients with Cancer; Analysis of Data from a Single Community Cancer Center\",\"authors\":\"Meisenberg Barry, Rhule RN Jane, T. Jessica, Arvin Laura, Tameris Susanne\",\"doi\":\"10.46619/cmj.2019.2-1010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: Cancer-related Emergency Department Visits (EDV) are costly and may indicate poor care. Most studies of cancer-related EDV identify patients using inclusive diagnostic codes but lack precision since they don’t distinguish active cancer. We compared estimates of oncology-related EDV made by diagnostic code methods to a more specific method followed by chart review. We also studied characteristics of validated EDV. Methods: EDV from cancer patients at a single acute care hospital were measured using any inclusive oncology codes and was compared to EDV made by patients who were active attendees at cancer clinics. We then reviewed the records of a 50% random sample of the ‘active’ patients to estimate how many were related to cancer or cancer treatment. Results: Over 5 months, 790 oncology-EDV were identified by coding, but only 554 (70%) were made by ‘active’ patients. After review, 29% of active patient EDV was determined not to be related to an oncology problem or treatment. 48% of EDV occurred during daytime clinic hours. 79% were preceded by one or more contacts with the oncology care team within a week. There was variability in the number of EDV by patients of different oncologists. Conclusion: The impact of cancer in overall EDV counts is over-estimated by coding because coding cannot distinguish between active and inactive cancer nor discriminate between symptoms likely due to unlikely due to cancer or cancer treatments. Cancer programs should study the experiences of their own patients to design effective programs to reduce potentially avoidable utilization.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72513,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer medicine journal\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer medicine journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.46619/cmj.2019.2-1010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer medicine journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46619/cmj.2019.2-1010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:癌症相关急诊科就诊(EDV)费用昂贵,可能表明护理不良。大多数与癌症相关的EDV研究使用包容性诊断代码来识别患者,但由于没有区分活动性癌症,因此缺乏准确性。我们比较了诊断代码方法和更具体的方法对肿瘤相关EDV的估计,然后进行了图表回顾。我们还研究了验证EDV的特性。方法:使用任何包容性肿瘤学代码测量单一急性护理医院癌症患者的EDV,并将其与癌症诊所积极参与者的EDV进行比较。然后,我们回顾了50%的随机“活跃”患者的记录,以估计有多少人与癌症或癌症治疗有关。结果:在5个月的时间里,通过编码鉴定出790例肿瘤edv,但只有554例(70%)是由“活跃”患者产生的。经过审查,29%的活跃患者EDV被确定与肿瘤问题或治疗无关。48%的EDV发生在日间门诊时间。79%的患者在一周内与肿瘤护理团队进行了一次或多次接触。不同肿瘤学家的患者在EDV数量上存在差异。结论:癌症对总EDV计数的影响被编码高估了,因为编码不能区分活动性和非活动性癌症,也不能区分可能因癌症或不可能因癌症或癌症治疗引起的症状。癌症项目应该研究他们自己的病人的经验来设计有效的方案来减少潜在的可避免的使用。
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
Emergency Department Visits made by Patients with Cancer; Analysis of Data from a Single Community Cancer Center
Purpose: Cancer-related Emergency Department Visits (EDV) are costly and may indicate poor care. Most studies of cancer-related EDV identify patients using inclusive diagnostic codes but lack precision since they don’t distinguish active cancer. We compared estimates of oncology-related EDV made by diagnostic code methods to a more specific method followed by chart review. We also studied characteristics of validated EDV. Methods: EDV from cancer patients at a single acute care hospital were measured using any inclusive oncology codes and was compared to EDV made by patients who were active attendees at cancer clinics. We then reviewed the records of a 50% random sample of the ‘active’ patients to estimate how many were related to cancer or cancer treatment. Results: Over 5 months, 790 oncology-EDV were identified by coding, but only 554 (70%) were made by ‘active’ patients. After review, 29% of active patient EDV was determined not to be related to an oncology problem or treatment. 48% of EDV occurred during daytime clinic hours. 79% were preceded by one or more contacts with the oncology care team within a week. There was variability in the number of EDV by patients of different oncologists. Conclusion: The impact of cancer in overall EDV counts is over-estimated by coding because coding cannot distinguish between active and inactive cancer nor discriminate between symptoms likely due to unlikely due to cancer or cancer treatments. Cancer programs should study the experiences of their own patients to design effective programs to reduce potentially avoidable utilization.
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
ANK Therapeutic Prospects and Usefulness of PD-L1 and NK Activity as Biomarkers for Predicting Treatment Efficacy Revealed from the Treatment Course of Patients with HTLV-1-Associated Bronchioloalveolar Disease. Psychological Distress and Suicide Correlated with Long-Life Expectancy in Advanced Cancer Patients A Comprehensive Review of Management of Colorectal Liver Mets in the Current Era. Synchronous Duodenal and Jejunal Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors Impact of Using Median vs. Mean in Calculating ERBB2 FISH Results in Breast Cancer.
×
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