不同医疗系统急诊科患者的特征和治疗效果:一项国际多中心队列研究。

IF 2 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Bas de Groot, Nicoline T C Meijs, Michelle Moscova, Wouter Raven, Menno I Gaakeer, Wendy A M H Thijssen, Heleen Lameijer, Amith Shetty, Annmarie T Lassen
{"title":"不同医疗系统急诊科患者的特征和治疗效果:一项国际多中心队列研究。","authors":"Bas de Groot, Nicoline T C Meijs, Michelle Moscova, Wouter Raven, Menno I Gaakeer, Wendy A M H Thijssen, Heleen Lameijer, Amith Shetty, Annmarie T Lassen","doi":"10.1186/s12245-024-00715-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A wide variation of emergency medical system configurations across countries has limited the value of comparison of quality and performance measures in the past. Furthermore, lack of quantitative data on EDs prevents definition of the problems and possibilities for data driven improvement of quality of care. Therefore, the objective is to describe and compare Emergency Department (ED) populations and characteristics, and their outcomes in the Netherlands, Denmark and Australia, using a recently developed template for uniform reporting of standardized measuring and describing of care provided in the ED (structure, staffing and governance, population, process times and outcomes).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This international multicenter cohort included all consecutive ED visits from National Quality Registries or Databases from participating sites from three countries. Patient and ED characteristics (using the template for uniform reporting) and relevant clinical outcomes were described and compared per country.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 212,515 ED visits in the Netherlands, 408,673 in Denmark and 556,652 in Australia. Patient characteristics differed markedly, with Australian ED patients being younger, less often triaged as \"immediate\", and less often triaged with the high-risk chief complaints \"feeling unwell\" compared to Danish and Dutch patients. ED characteristics mainly differed with respect to the mean annual census per ED (Netherlands 26,738 (SD 2630), Denmark 36,675 (SD 12974), Australia 50,712 (4884)), median (IQR) lengths of stay of patients discharged home (Netherlands 2.1 (1.4-3.1); Denmark 2.8 (1.7-5.0); Australia 3.3 (2.0-5.0) hrs) and proportion of hospitalizations (ranging from 30.6 to 39.8%). In-hospital mortality was 4.0% in Australia, higher compared to the Netherlands and Denmark (both 1.6%). Not all indicators of the framework were available in all registries.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patient and ED characteristics and outcomes varied largely across countries. Meaningful interpretation of outcome differences across countries could be improved if quality registries would more consistently register the measures of the recently developed template for uniform reporting.</p>","PeriodicalId":13967,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11437790/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Characteristics and outcomes of emergency department patients across health care systems: an international multicenter cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Bas de Groot, Nicoline T C Meijs, Michelle Moscova, Wouter Raven, Menno I Gaakeer, Wendy A M H Thijssen, Heleen Lameijer, Amith Shetty, Annmarie T Lassen\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12245-024-00715-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A wide variation of emergency medical system configurations across countries has limited the value of comparison of quality and performance measures in the past. Furthermore, lack of quantitative data on EDs prevents definition of the problems and possibilities for data driven improvement of quality of care. Therefore, the objective is to describe and compare Emergency Department (ED) populations and characteristics, and their outcomes in the Netherlands, Denmark and Australia, using a recently developed template for uniform reporting of standardized measuring and describing of care provided in the ED (structure, staffing and governance, population, process times and outcomes).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This international multicenter cohort included all consecutive ED visits from National Quality Registries or Databases from participating sites from three countries. Patient and ED characteristics (using the template for uniform reporting) and relevant clinical outcomes were described and compared per country.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 212,515 ED visits in the Netherlands, 408,673 in Denmark and 556,652 in Australia. Patient characteristics differed markedly, with Australian ED patients being younger, less often triaged as \\\"immediate\\\", and less often triaged with the high-risk chief complaints \\\"feeling unwell\\\" compared to Danish and Dutch patients. ED characteristics mainly differed with respect to the mean annual census per ED (Netherlands 26,738 (SD 2630), Denmark 36,675 (SD 12974), Australia 50,712 (4884)), median (IQR) lengths of stay of patients discharged home (Netherlands 2.1 (1.4-3.1); Denmark 2.8 (1.7-5.0); Australia 3.3 (2.0-5.0) hrs) and proportion of hospitalizations (ranging from 30.6 to 39.8%). In-hospital mortality was 4.0% in Australia, higher compared to the Netherlands and Denmark (both 1.6%). Not all indicators of the framework were available in all registries.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patient and ED characteristics and outcomes varied largely across countries. Meaningful interpretation of outcome differences across countries could be improved if quality registries would more consistently register the measures of the recently developed template for uniform reporting.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13967,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11437790/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12245-024-00715-0\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12245-024-00715-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:各国急诊医疗系统的配置差异很大,这限制了过去对质量和绩效衡量标准进行比较的价值。此外,由于缺乏有关急诊室的定量数据,因此无法明确问题所在,也无法以数据为导向提高医疗质量。因此,我们的目标是利用最近开发的模板,描述并比较荷兰、丹麦和澳大利亚的急诊科(ED)人群和特征及其结果,该模板用于统一报告急诊科提供的标准化测量和护理描述(结构、人员配备和管理、人群、流程时间和结果):该国际多中心队列包括来自三个国家参与机构的国家质量登记处或数据库的所有连续急诊室就诊。对每个国家的患者和急诊室特征(使用统一报告模板)以及相关临床结果进行了描述和比较:我们纳入了荷兰的 212,515 次急诊就诊、丹麦的 408,673 次急诊就诊和澳大利亚的 556,652 次急诊就诊。与丹麦和荷兰的患者相比,澳大利亚的急诊患者更年轻,较少被分诊为 "急诊",也较少被分诊为主诉为 "感觉不适 "的高危患者。急诊室的特点主要表现在每个急诊室的年平均收治人数(荷兰为26738人(标清2630人),丹麦为36675人(标清12974人),澳大利亚为50712人(4884人))、患者出院回家的住院时间中位数(IQR)(荷兰为2.1(1.4-3.1)小时,丹麦为2.8(1.7-5.0)小时,澳大利亚为3.3(2.0-5.0)小时)和住院比例(30.6%-39.8%)。澳大利亚的院内死亡率为 4.0%,高于荷兰和丹麦(均为 1.6%)。并非所有登记处都提供了框架中的所有指标:结论:不同国家的患者和急诊室特征及结果存在很大差异。如果质量登记处能更一致地登记最近开发的统一报告模板中的指标,就能更好地对各国的结果差异做出有意义的解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Characteristics and outcomes of emergency department patients across health care systems: an international multicenter cohort study.

Background: A wide variation of emergency medical system configurations across countries has limited the value of comparison of quality and performance measures in the past. Furthermore, lack of quantitative data on EDs prevents definition of the problems and possibilities for data driven improvement of quality of care. Therefore, the objective is to describe and compare Emergency Department (ED) populations and characteristics, and their outcomes in the Netherlands, Denmark and Australia, using a recently developed template for uniform reporting of standardized measuring and describing of care provided in the ED (structure, staffing and governance, population, process times and outcomes).

Methods: This international multicenter cohort included all consecutive ED visits from National Quality Registries or Databases from participating sites from three countries. Patient and ED characteristics (using the template for uniform reporting) and relevant clinical outcomes were described and compared per country.

Results: We included 212,515 ED visits in the Netherlands, 408,673 in Denmark and 556,652 in Australia. Patient characteristics differed markedly, with Australian ED patients being younger, less often triaged as "immediate", and less often triaged with the high-risk chief complaints "feeling unwell" compared to Danish and Dutch patients. ED characteristics mainly differed with respect to the mean annual census per ED (Netherlands 26,738 (SD 2630), Denmark 36,675 (SD 12974), Australia 50,712 (4884)), median (IQR) lengths of stay of patients discharged home (Netherlands 2.1 (1.4-3.1); Denmark 2.8 (1.7-5.0); Australia 3.3 (2.0-5.0) hrs) and proportion of hospitalizations (ranging from 30.6 to 39.8%). In-hospital mortality was 4.0% in Australia, higher compared to the Netherlands and Denmark (both 1.6%). Not all indicators of the framework were available in all registries.

Conclusions: Patient and ED characteristics and outcomes varied largely across countries. Meaningful interpretation of outcome differences across countries could be improved if quality registries would more consistently register the measures of the recently developed template for uniform reporting.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
63
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The aim of the journal is to bring to light the various clinical advancements and research developments attained over the world and thus help the specialty forge ahead. It is directed towards physicians and medical personnel undergoing training or working within the field of Emergency Medicine. Medical students who are interested in pursuing a career in Emergency Medicine will also benefit from the journal. This is particularly useful for trainees in countries where the specialty is still in its infancy. Disciplines covered will include interesting clinical cases, the latest evidence-based practice and research developments in Emergency medicine including emergency pediatrics.
×
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