4.6 Article

A pragmatic triage system to reduce length of stay in medical emergency admission: Feasibility study and health economic analysis

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 25, 期 9, 页码 815-820

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2014.06.001

关键词

Triage; Emergency admission; Internal medicine; Length of stay; Frailty

资金

  1. SHINE grant by the Health Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Departments of Internal Medicine tend to treat patients on a first come first served basis. The effects of using triage systems are not known. Methods: We studied a cohort in an Acute Medical Unit (AMU). A computer-assisted triage system using acute physiology, pre-existing illness and mobility identified five distinct risk categories. Management of the category of very low risk patients was streamlined by a dedicated Navigator. Main outcome parameters were length of hospital stay (LOS) and overall costs. Results were adjusted for the degree of frailty as measured by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). A six month baseline phase and intervention phase were compared. Results: 6764 patients were included: 3084 in the baseline and 3680 in the intervention phase. Patients with very low risk of death accounted for 40% of the cohort. The LOS of the 1489 patients with very low risk of death in the intervention group was reduced by a mean of 1.85 days if compared with the 1276 patients with very low risk in the baseline cohort. This was true even after adjustment for frailty. Over the six month period the cost of care was reduced by 250,158 pound in very low patients with no increase in readmissions or 30 day mortality. Conclusions: Implementation of an advanced triage system had a measurable impact on cost of care for patients with very low risk of death. Patients were safely discharged earlier to their own home and the intervention was cost-effective. Crown Copyright (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Federation of Internal Medicine. 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