4.6 Article

Rapid Discharge in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Utility of the Outpatient Arthroplasty Risk Assessment Tool in Predicting Same-Day and Next-Day Discharge

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY
卷 33, 期 8, 页码 2412-2416

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE INC MEDICAL PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.03.025

关键词

total hip arthroplasty; value-based care; outpatient arthroplasty risk assessment; next-day discharge; same-day discharge; length of stay

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hospital length of stay is a major driver of cost in the total hip arthroplasty (THA) episode of care, and as a result, significant efforts are being made to minimize it. This study aims to assess the utility of the Outpatient Arthroplasty Risk Assessment (OARA) screening tool in accurately identifying patients for safe and early discharge after THA. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on 332 consecutive patients who underwent primary THA at a single tertiary academic center. Patients were evaluated using the OARA score, a tool that has been proposed to identify patients who can safely undergo early discharge after THA. The validity of these claims was assessed by analyzing the OARA score's positive and negative predictive values for high vs low OARA scores between patients enrolled in our (1) same-day discharge (SDD) and 2) next-day discharge (NDD) pathways. Results: When comparing the utility of the OARA score in accurately predicting length of stay, the OARA score demonstrated a (1) higher, but constant, positive predictive value for discharge on postoperative day (POD) 0 for SDD (86.1%) than POD1 for NDD (35.5%) and (2) lower negative predictive value for discharge on POD0 (23.1%) for SDD than POD1 for NDD (86.1%). Conclusion: The OARA score was developed to risk-stratify patients who can safely undergo SDD or NDD after THA. In this study, the OARA score was a highly predictive tool in identifying NDD patients at risk for failure of discharge by POD1. (C) 2018 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

4.6
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