4.0 Article

Factors affecting the length of stay of patients with traumatic spinal cord injury in Tianjin, China

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPINAL CORD MEDICINE
Volume 36, Issue 3, Pages 237-242

Publisher

MANEY PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1179/2045772313Y.0000000090

Keywords

China; Length of stay; Spinal cord injury; Trauma

Funding

  1. Key Technology Foundation of Tianjin Health Bureau [07KG2]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81070982]
  3. Research Foundation of Tianjin Health Bureau [09kz104]
  4. Tianjin Research Program of Application Foundation and Advanced Technology [10JCZDJC18800]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To describe the acute care length of stay (ACLOS) of adult patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) in Tianjin, China, and identify the associated demographic and clinical factors. Methods: TSCI patients admitted to a general hospital in Tianjin, China from 2004 to 2007 were identified. The predictor variables were demographic and clinical factors, including age, gender, etiology, level of injury, severity, associated injuries, surgery, and complications. The outcome variable was ACLOS. Multivariable linear regression analysis models were used to examine the association between predictor and outcome variables. Results: This study included 631 TSCI patients. The mean ACLOS was 32.4 +/- 37.7 days, with a range of 1-294 days. The median number of hospitalization days was 21 days. Admission to a suburban hospital surgery, urinary infection, poorer functional status, pressure ulcers, and associated injuries were significantly associated with ACLOS. Conclusion: This study examined the effect of epidemiological and clinical factors on ACLOS in Tianjin, China. The factors that influenced the ACLOS were different from factors reported in other studies. More studies are needed in China to determine the effect of these factors on ACLOS in TSCI patients and to propose a predictive model.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available