4.5 Article

National Cohort Study of Resource Utilization in Older Adults With Emergency General Surgery Conditions

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
卷 290, 期 -, 页码 310-318

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2023.05.010

关键词

Emergency general surgery; Medicare; Resource utilization

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed Medicare data and found that the treatment of Emergency General Surgery (EGS) diseases in older adults involves multiple resources. Different diseases have different treatment methods and resource utilization. It is suggested that changes in EGS models, acute care surgery training, and interhospital care coordination may improve the treatment outcomes for EGS patients.
Introduction: Prior studies have sought to describe Emergency General Surgery (EGS) burden, but a detailed description of resource utilization for both operative and nonoperative management of EGS conditions has not been undertaken.Methods: Patient and hospital characteristics were extracted from Medicare data, 2015-2018. Operations, nonsurgical procedures, and other resources (i.e., radiology) were defined using Current Procedural Terminology codes.Results: One million eight hundred two thousand five hundred forty-five patients were included in the cohort. The mean age was 74.7 y and the most common diagnoses were upper gastrointestinal. The majority of hospitals were metropolitan (75.1%). Therapeutic radiology services were available in 78.4% of hospitals and operating rooms or endoscopy suites were available in 92.5% of hospitals. There was variability in resource utilization across EGS subconditions, with hepatobiliary (26.4%) and obstruction (23.9%) patients most frequently undergoing operation.Conclusions: Treatment of EGS diseases in older adults involves several interventional resources. Changes in EGS models, acute care surgery training, and interhospital care coordination may be beneficial to the treatment of EGS patients. & COPY; 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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