Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Nurs Rep ; 11(1): 28-35, 2021 Jan 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34968309

ABSTRACT

The role of advanced practice providers has expanded in the hospital setting. However, little data exist examining the impact of these providers. Our purpose was to determine the effect of adding nurse practitioners in a complementary role on the quality and efficiency of care of hospitalized patients. A retrospective cohort study evaluated adult patients admitted by private physicians (without house staff or non-physician providers) to a general medical-surgical unit in an academic medical center. The admissions department allocated patients as beds became available and nurse practitioners were assigned to patients until their caseload was reached. Outcomes included length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, admission costs, 30-day readmissions, transfer to a more intensive care level, and discharge order time. Of the 382 patients included in this study, 263 were assigned to the nurse practitioner group. Hospital mortality was lower in the nurse practitioner group [OR 0.11 (95% CI 0.02-0.51)] as was transfer to more intensive care level [OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.20-0.75)]; however, the nurse practitioner group had longer length of stay (geometric mean = 5.80 days for nurse practitioners, 3.63 days for no nurse practitioners; p < 0.0001) and higher cost per patient (geometric mean = USD 6631 vs. USD 5121; p = 0.005). The results were unchanged when models were adjusted for potential confounders. Adding nurse practitioners can yield improved clinical outcomes (lower hospital mortality and fewer transfers to intensive care), but with a potential economic expense (longer hospital stays and higher costs).

2.
J Hosp Med ; 8(11): 647-52, 2013 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24124069

ABSTRACT

Blood product transfusion has not been subject to rigorous clinical study, and great practice variations exist. Of particular concern to hospitalists is the use of red blood cells, plasma, and platelets prior to invasive procedures to correct anemia or perceived bleeding risk. We summarize the known risks associated with periprocedural anemia, prolonged international normalized ratio (INR), and thrombocytopenia, as well as the effects of blood product administration on clinical outcomes. Clinical trial evidence argues for a restrictive red blood cell transfusion threshold (a hemoglobin level of 7-8 g/dL or symptomatic anemia) for most perioperative patients. There are no high-quality data to guide plasma and platelet transfusions around the time of procedures. Available data do not support the use of prothrombin time/INR to guide prophylactic administration of plasma, and there are scarce data to guide platelet use around the time of an invasive procedure. Therefore, we rely on current consensus expert opinion, which recommends administration of plasma in moderate- to high-risk procedures when INR is >1.5. We recommend platelet transfusion in low-risk procedures when platelet count is <20,000/µL, for average-risk procedures when platelet count is <50,000/µL, and for procedures involving the central nervous system when the platelet count is <100,000/µL.


Subject(s)
Anemia/prevention & control , Blood Component Transfusion/standards , Evidence-Based Practice , Thrombocytopenia/prevention & control , Anemia/complications , Anemia/etiology , Blood Component Transfusion/adverse effects , Blood Component Transfusion/methods , Consensus , Humans , Perioperative Period , Risk Assessment/methods , Thrombocytopenia/complications , Thrombocytopenia/etiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...