4.3 Article

Impact of an Integrated Hip Fracture Inpatient Program on Length of Stay and Costs

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC TRAUMA
卷 30, 期 12, 页码 647-652

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000691

关键词

hip fracture; co-management; hospitalist; quality improvement; osteoporosis; quality-based procedures

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hip fractures are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Co-management models pairing orthopaedic surgeons with hospitalists or geriatricians may be effective at improving processes of care and outcomes such as length of stay (LOS) and cost. We set out to determine the effect of an integrated hip fracture co-management model on LOS, cost, and process measures. Methods: We conducted a single-center pre-post study of 571 patients admitted to an academic medical center with hip fractures between January 2009 and December 2013. The group receiving an integrated medical-surgical co-management incorporating continuous improvement methodology was compared with a control population. Primary outcome was LOS. Secondary outcomes included cost per case, time to surgery, osteoporosis (OP) treatment, preoperative echocardiogram utilization, mortality, and readmission. Results: LOS decreased from 18.2 (1.1) to 11.9 (1.5) days, a reduction of 6.3 days (P < 0.001). Mean cost decreased by $ 4953 (P < 0.001) per case. Mean time to surgery decreased from 45.8 (66.8) to 29.7 (17.9) hours (P < 0.001). Initiation of OP treatment increased from 55.8% to 96.4% (P < 0.001). Preoperative echocardiogram use decreased from 15.8% to 9.1% (P < 0.05). There was a nonsignificant difference in mortality rate (5.0% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.06). Readmission rate remained unchanged (4.6% vs. 6.0%, P = 0.56). Conclusions: An integrated medical-surgical co-management model incorporating continuous improvement methodology was associated with reduced LOS, costs, time to surgery, and increased initiation of appropriate OP treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据