Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg ; 89(6): 1177-1182, 2020 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33231952

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Trauma patients are often noted to have poor compliance but high recidivism and readmission rates. Participation in a trauma recovery services (TRS) program, which provides peer support and other psychosocial resources, may impact the trajectory of patient recovery by decreasing barriers to follow-up. We hypothesized that TRS participants would have greater downstream nonemergent use of our hospital system over the year following trauma, manifested by more positive encounters, fewer negative encounters, and lower emergency department (ED) charges. METHODS: We studied trauma survivors (March 2017 to March 2018) offered TRS. Hospital encounters and charges 1 year from index admission were compared between patients who accepted and declined TRS. Positive encounters were defined as outpatient visits and planned admissions; negative encounters were defined as no shows, ED visits, and unplanned admissions. Charges were grouped as cumulative ED and non-ED charges (including outpatient and subsequent admission charges). Adjusted logistic and linear regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with positive/negative encounters and ED charges. RESULTS: Of 511 identified patients (68% male; injury severity score, 14 [9-19]), 362 (71%) accepted TRS. Trauma recovery services patients were older, had higher injury severity, and longer index admission length of stay (all p < 0.05). After adjusting for confounders, TRS patients were more likely to have at least one positive encounter and were similarly likely to have negative encounters as patients who declined services. Total aggregate charges for this group was US $74 million, of which US $30 million occurred downstream of the index admission. Accepting TRS was associated with lower ED charges. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive TRS program including education, peer mentors, and a support network may provide value to the patient and the health care system by reducing subsequent care provided by the ED in the year after a trauma without affecting nonemergent care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management, level IV.


Assuntos
Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/estatística & dados numéricos , Serviços de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Ferimentos e Lesões/terapia , Adulto , Eficiência Organizacional , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/economia , Feminino , Preços Hospitalares , Hospitalização , Humanos , Escala de Gravidade do Ferimento , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Recuperação de Função Fisiológica , Análise de Regressão , Estudos Retrospectivos , Sobreviventes , Centros de Traumatologia , Ferimentos e Lesões/psicologia , Adulto Jovem
2.
J Surg Res ; 256: 143-148, 2020 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32707396

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Historically, trauma patients have low adherence to recommended outpatient follow-up plans, which is crucial for improved long-term clinical outcomes. We sought to identify characteristics associated with nonadherence to recommended outpatient follow-up visits. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective examination of inpatient trauma survivors admitted to a level 1 trauma center (March 2017-March 2018). Patients with known alternative follow-up were excluded. All outpatient visits within 1 y from the index admission were identified. The primary outcome was nonadherence, which was noted if a patient failed to follow-up for any specialty recommended in the discharge instructions. Factors for nonadherence studied included age, injury severity score, mechanism, length of stay, number of referrals made, and involvement with a Trauma Recovery Services program. Bivariate and logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of498 patients were identified (69% men, median age 43 y [range, 26-58 y], median injury severity score 14 [range, 9-19]). Among them, 240 (47%) were nonadherent. The most common specialties recommended were orthopedic surgery (56% referred, 19% nonadherent), trauma (54% referred, 35% nonadherent), and neurosurgery (127 referred, 35% nonadherent). Lowest levels of follow-up were seen for nonsurgical referrals. In adjusted analysis, a higher number of referrals made (odds ratio [OR], 2.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.95-3.05) and older age (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02) were associated with nonadherence. Trauma Recovery Service participants and penetrating trauma patients were more likely to be adherent (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The largest contributor to nonadherence was the number of referrals made; patients who were referred to multiple specialists were more likely to be nonadherent. Peer support services may lower barriers to follow-up.


Assuntos
Assistência ao Convalescente/estatística & dados numéricos , Pacientes não Comparecentes/estatística & dados numéricos , Alta do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Encaminhamento e Consulta/estatística & dados numéricos , Ferimentos e Lesões/terapia , Adulto , Assistência ao Convalescente/psicologia , Fatores Etários , Feminino , Humanos , Escala de Gravidade do Ferimento , Tempo de Internação/estatística & dados numéricos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pacientes não Comparecentes/psicologia , Ambulatório Hospitalar/estatística & dados numéricos , Grupo Associado , Influência dos Pares , Estudos Retrospectivos , Ferimentos e Lesões/diagnóstico , Ferimentos e Lesões/psicologia , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...