4.5 Article

Trends in postoperative length of stay after bypass surgery

Journal

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 152, Issue 6, Pages 1194-1200

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2006.07.017

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. AHRQ HHS [R01 HS10279] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Although single-site studies have reported reductions in coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery length of stay (LOS) over the last 15 years, less information is available regarding overall temporal trends and interhospital variability. This study examined trends in postoperative LOS, associated rates of transfer at discharge and variation among hospitals in LOS at CABG hospitals in New York State. Methods Trends in postoperative LOS and transfers at discharge for 105 842 CABG patients treated in 30 hospitals in New York between 1992 and 1998 were first described graphically. Mixed models were then used to assess temporal trends and interhospital variability in LOS, accounting for differences in patient risk and within-hospital correlation in outcomes. Clinical and LOS data were obtained from the Cardiac Surgery Reporting System. Additional information was extracted from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System. Results Postoperative LOS decreased 30% between 1992 and 1998 after adjusting for patient risk. A concurrent increase in the probability of nonacute patient transfers occurred over time, with the most pronounced increase in patients with stays exceeding 5 days. Underlying the downward trend in LOS was substantial interhospital variability that peaked in 1994 and remained significant in 1998. Stays were longer at hospitals located in New York City. Conclusions The downward shift in LOS observed in the 1990s was achieved in part by an increase in nonacute care transfers, reflecting a shift in care setting. After decreasing trends in postoperative stays tapered off, significant variability among hospitals remained.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available