4.6 Article

A novel Canadian multidisciplinary acute care pathway for people hospitalised with a diabetic foot ulcer

期刊

INTERNATIONAL WOUND JOURNAL
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14214

关键词

amputation; diabetic foot; limb salvage; patient care team

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This manuscript discusses the implementation and initial evaluation of a novel acute care pathway for Canadian patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFU). A multidisciplinary team developed and implemented the pathway for DFU patients who visited the emergency department and needed hospitalization. The study analyzed processes of care, length of stay, and hospitalization costs, showing favorable results compared to historical data.
This manuscript describes the implementation and initial evaluation of a novel Canadian acute care pathway for people with a diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). A multidisciplinary team developed and implemented an acute care pathway for patients with a DFU who presented to the emergency department (ED) and required hospitalisation at a tertiary care hospital in Canada. Processes of care, length of stay (LOS), and hospitalisation costs were considered through retrospective cohort study of all DFU hospitalizations from pathway launch in December 2018 to December 2020. There were 82 DFU-related hospital admissions through the ED of which 55 required invasive intervention: 28 (34.1%) minor amputations, 16 (19.5%) abscess drainage and debridement, 6 (7.3%) lower extremity revascularisations, 5 (6.1%) major amputations. Mean hospital LOS was 8.8 +/- 4.9 days. Mean hospitalisation cost was $20 569 (+/- 14 143): $25 901 (+/- 15 965) when surgical intervention was required and $9279 (+/- 7106) when it was not. LOS and hospitalisation costs compared favourably to historical data. An acute care DFU pathway can support the efficient evaluation and management of patients hospitalised with a DFU. A dedicated multidisciplinary DFU care team is a valuable resource for hospitals in Canada.

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