The impact of pathways: a significant decrease in mortality

M. Panella
{"title":"The impact of pathways: a significant decrease in mortality","authors":"M. Panella","doi":"10.1258/jicp.2009.009007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study was undertaken to determine how care pathways (CPs) in the hospital treatment of heart failure (HF) affected in-hospital mortality, and outcomes at discharge. A two-arm, cluster randomized trial was conducted. Fourteen community hospitals were randomized either to arm 1 (CPs) or to arm 2 (no intervention, usual care). A sample size of 424 patients (212 in each group) was used in order to have 80% of power at the 5% significance level (two-sided). The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were also evaluated. In-hospital mortality was 5.6% in the experimental arm and 15.4% in the controls (P = 0.001). In CP and usual care groups, the mean rates of unscheduled readmissions were 7.9% and 13.9%, respectively. Adjusting for age, smoking, New York Heart Association (NYHA) score, hypertension and source of referral, patients in the CP group, as compared with controls, had a significantly lower risk of in-hospital death (odds ratio [OR] = 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07–0.46) and unscheduled readmissions (OR = 0.42; CI = 0.20–0.87). No differences were found between CP and control with respect to the appropriateness of the stay, costs and patient's satisfaction. This paper examines the evaluation of a complex intervention and adds evidence to previous knowledge, indicating that CP should be used to improve the quality of hospital treatment of HF.","PeriodicalId":114083,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Care Pathways","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Care Pathways","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1258/jicp.2009.009007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This study was undertaken to determine how care pathways (CPs) in the hospital treatment of heart failure (HF) affected in-hospital mortality, and outcomes at discharge. A two-arm, cluster randomized trial was conducted. Fourteen community hospitals were randomized either to arm 1 (CPs) or to arm 2 (no intervention, usual care). A sample size of 424 patients (212 in each group) was used in order to have 80% of power at the 5% significance level (two-sided). The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were also evaluated. In-hospital mortality was 5.6% in the experimental arm and 15.4% in the controls (P = 0.001). In CP and usual care groups, the mean rates of unscheduled readmissions were 7.9% and 13.9%, respectively. Adjusting for age, smoking, New York Heart Association (NYHA) score, hypertension and source of referral, patients in the CP group, as compared with controls, had a significantly lower risk of in-hospital death (odds ratio [OR] = 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07–0.46) and unscheduled readmissions (OR = 0.42; CI = 0.20–0.87). No differences were found between CP and control with respect to the appropriateness of the stay, costs and patient's satisfaction. This paper examines the evaluation of a complex intervention and adds evidence to previous knowledge, indicating that CP should be used to improve the quality of hospital treatment of HF.
道路的影响:死亡率显著降低
本研究旨在确定心力衰竭(HF)住院治疗中的护理途径(CPs)如何影响住院死亡率和出院结果。进行了一项双组随机试验。14家社区医院被随机分配到第1组(CPs)或第2组(无干预,常规护理)。样本量为424例(每组212例),以便在5%显著性水平(双侧)下具有80%的有效性。主要结局指标为住院死亡率。次要结果也进行了评估。住院死亡率实验组为5.6%,对照组为15.4% (P = 0.001)。在常规护理组和常规护理组,计划外再入院的平均比率分别为7.9%和13.9%。调整年龄、吸烟、纽约心脏协会(NYHA)评分、高血压和转诊来源等因素后,与对照组相比,CP组患者住院死亡风险显著降低(优势比[OR] = 0.18;95%可信区间[CI]: 0.07-0.46)和计划外再入院(OR = 0.42;Ci = 0.20-0.87)。在住院适宜性、费用和患者满意度方面,CP组和对照组之间没有差异。本文探讨了一种复杂干预措施的评价,并为以往的知识增加了证据,表明CP应用于提高心衰的医院治疗质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信