4.6 Article

Current National Incidence, Trends, and Health Care Resource Utilization of Cleft Lip-Cleft Palate

期刊

PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
卷 127, 期 3, 页码 1255-1262

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182043af6

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. University of California, Los Angeles

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Available reports on the epidemiology of cleft lip, cleft palate, and cleft lip cleft palate have been numerous yet inconsistent, and have originated only from institutional or regional studies. The need for current national data and the recognition of recent trends exists. Methods: The authors examined the Kids' Inpatient Database to obtain national information on pediatric orofacial cleft discharges from 1997 to 2007. The authors examined patient and hospital characteristics to discern differences in use of care, hospital charges, type of hospital, untoward events, and other variables among various groups. A detailed investigation searching for significant trends during the 6-year study period was also conducted. Results: Trends appreciated from 1997 to 2007 included (1) an increase in cleft operations performed at teaching hospitals compared with non teaching hospitals (teaching increased 13.4 percent and nonteaching decreased 15.8 percent); (2) an increase in the mean overall charges (74.5 percent increase; p < 0.001) and a rate of rise higher than that of aggregate charges (60 percent; P < 0.001); and (3) a lower rate of perioperative complications in teaching hospitals from 2000 to 2007, ranging from 14 to 27 percent less than in nonteaching hospitals. Conclusions: The authors' data show that there is a current trend of cleft patients receiving treatment at teaching hospitals, with higher costs and decreasing complications. An understanding of such trends and disparities in resource use among various patient, hospital, and geographic settings is important for physicians and policy makers. (Mast. Reconstr. Surg. 127: 1255, 2011.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据