The epidemiology of osteopathic diagnoses and treatments in United States emergency departments from 2018 to 2021.

IF 1.4 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Aviya Distefano, Hanna Harris, Kaitlin M Bowers, Dhimitri A Nikolla
{"title":"The epidemiology of osteopathic diagnoses and treatments in United States emergency departments from 2018 to 2021.","authors":"Aviya Distefano, Hanna Harris, Kaitlin M Bowers, Dhimitri A Nikolla","doi":"10.1515/jom-2024-0261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Although a large proportion of US emergency physicians are osteopathic physicians (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine [DOs]), the frequency of osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) use in emergency departments (EDs) is unknown.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to estimate the frequency of OMM in EDs across the US and describe the cohort who received OMM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective cohort study of ED patients from 2018 to 2021 in the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS), Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Encounters with OMM were identified by diagnosis and procedure codes. We calculated weighted frequencies of encounters with OMM per 100,000 ED encounters with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) by year, accounting for the complex survey design of NEDS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 9,576 encounters with OMM during the study period. The weighted frequency of encounters with OMM per 100,000 ED encounters was 6.9 (95 % CI, 3.8 to 11.5) for 2018, 8.6 (4.3-15.5) for 2019, 12.6 (3.5-32.0) for 2020, and 5.5 (3.3-8.5) for 2021. Most patients were female (5,669, 59.2 %) with a median age of 53 (interquartile range [IQR] 36 to 67). The majority were from metropolitan teaching hospitals (7,094, 74.1 %), and about half were admitted (4,565, 47.7 %). The most common osteopathic diagnosis code was segmental and somatic dysfunction of the thoracic region (4,202 of 21,358 [19.7 %] codes).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>OMM is infrequently provided across hospital-owned US EDs. Further research is needed to describe the frequency of OMM across all acute care settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":36050,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jom-2024-0261","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Although a large proportion of US emergency physicians are osteopathic physicians (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine [DOs]), the frequency of osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) use in emergency departments (EDs) is unknown.

Objectives: We aimed to estimate the frequency of OMM in EDs across the US and describe the cohort who received OMM.

Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of ED patients from 2018 to 2021 in the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS), Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Encounters with OMM were identified by diagnosis and procedure codes. We calculated weighted frequencies of encounters with OMM per 100,000 ED encounters with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) by year, accounting for the complex survey design of NEDS.

Results: We identified 9,576 encounters with OMM during the study period. The weighted frequency of encounters with OMM per 100,000 ED encounters was 6.9 (95 % CI, 3.8 to 11.5) for 2018, 8.6 (4.3-15.5) for 2019, 12.6 (3.5-32.0) for 2020, and 5.5 (3.3-8.5) for 2021. Most patients were female (5,669, 59.2 %) with a median age of 53 (interquartile range [IQR] 36 to 67). The majority were from metropolitan teaching hospitals (7,094, 74.1 %), and about half were admitted (4,565, 47.7 %). The most common osteopathic diagnosis code was segmental and somatic dysfunction of the thoracic region (4,202 of 21,358 [19.7 %] codes).

Conclusions: OMM is infrequently provided across hospital-owned US EDs. Further research is needed to describe the frequency of OMM across all acute care settings.

2018年至2021年美国急诊科骨科诊断和治疗的流行病学
背景:虽然大部分美国急诊医生都是骨科医生(骨科医学博士[DOs]),但在急诊科(ed)使用骨科手法医学(OMM)的频率尚不清楚。目的:我们旨在估计美国急诊科中OMM的频率,并描述接受OMM的队列。方法:我们对全国急诊科样本(NEDS)、医疗成本与利用项目(HCUP)、卫生保健研究与质量局2018年至2021年的ED患者进行回顾性队列研究。通过诊断和程序代码确定与OMM的接触。考虑到NEDS的复杂调查设计,我们以每年95% %的置信区间(ci)计算了每100,000次ED遭遇的OMM加权频率。结果:在研究期间,我们确定了9576例OMM病例。2018年每100,000次ED遭遇OMM的加权频率为6.9(95 % CI, 3.8至11.5),2019年为8.6(4.3-15.5),2020年为12.6(3.5-32.0),2021年为5.5(3.3-8.5)。大多数患者为女性(5,669例,59.2 %),中位年龄为53岁(四分位数间距[IQR] 36 ~ 67)。绝大多数来自城市教学医院(7094例,74.1 %),约有一半住院(4565例,47.7 %)。最常见的骨病诊断代码是胸椎区域的节段性和躯体功能障碍(21,358个代码中有4,202个[19.7 %])。结论:医院拥有的美国急诊科很少提供OMM。需要进一步的研究来描述所有急性护理环境中OMM的频率。
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
Journal of Osteopathic Medicine
Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Health Professions-Complementary and Manual Therapy
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
13.30%
发文量
118
×
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