首页> 外文期刊>Global spine journal. >Effect of Surgical Setting on Hospital-Reported Outcomes for Elective Lumbar Spinal Procedures: Tertiary Versus Community Hospitals
【24h】

Effect of Surgical Setting on Hospital-Reported Outcomes for Elective Lumbar Spinal Procedures: Tertiary Versus Community Hospitals

机译:外科手术环境对选修腰椎手术的医院报告结果的影响:高等教育与社区医院

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: As hospital compensation becomes increasingly dependent on pay-for-performance and bundled payment compensation models, hospitals seek to reduce costs and increase quality. To our knowledge, no reported data compare these measures between hospital settings for elective lumbar procedures. The study compares hospital-reported outcomes and costs for elective lumbar procedures performed at a tertiary hospital (TH) versus community hospitals (CH) within a single health care system. Methods: Retrospective review of a physician-maintained, prospectively collected database consisting of 1 TH and 4 CH for 3 common lumbar surgeries from 2015 to 2016. Patients undergoing primary elective microdiscectomy for disc herniation, laminectomy for spinal stenosis, and laminectomy with fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis were included. Patients were excluded for traumatic, infectious, or malignant pathology. Comparing hospital settings, outcomes included length of stay (LOS), rates of 30-day readmissions, potentially preventable complications (PPC), and discharge to rehabilitation facility, and hospital costs. Results: A total of 892 patients (n = 217 microdiscectomies, n = 302 laminectomies, and n = 373 laminectomy fusions) were included. The TH served a younger patient population with fewer comorbid conditions and a higher proportion of African Americans. The TH performed more decompressions ( P .001) per level fused; the CH performed more interbody fusions ( P = .007). Cost of performing microdiscectomy ( P .001) and laminectomy ( P = .014) was significantly higher at the TH, but there was no significant difference for laminectomy with fusion. In a multivariable stepwise linear regression analysis, the TH was significantly more expensive for single-level microdiscectomy ( P .001) and laminectomy with single-level fusion ( P .001), but trended toward significance for laminectomy without fusion ( P = .052). No difference existed for PPC or readmissions rate. Patients undergoing laminectomy without fusion were discharged to a facility more often at the TH ( P = .019). Conclusions: We provide hospital-reported outcomes between a TH and CH. Significant differences in patient characteristics and surgical practices exist between surgical settings. Despite minimal differences in hospital-reported outcomes, the TH was significantly more expensive.
机译:研究设计:回顾性队列研究。目的:由于医院赔偿越来越依赖于绩效付费和捆绑支付补偿模型,医院寻求降低成本并提高质量。据我们所知,没有报告的数据在医院环境之间比较选修腰腰部程序之间的这些措施。该研究将医院报告的结果和成本与在单一的医疗保健系统中的第三节医院(TH)上进行的选修腰部程序进行了比较。方法:回顾性审查2015至2016年第1次常见的腰部手术的医生维护,前瞻性收集的数据库,由第1次和4个常见的腰部手术组成。接受椎间盘突出症,脊髓狭窄的椎间盘切除术,椎间膜切除术治疗退行性的患者包括辛迪尔科窒息。患者被排除在造成创伤,传染性或恶性病理学之外。比较医院环境,结果包括逗留时间(LOS),30天的阅览率,潜在可预防的并发症(PPC),以及康复设施的排放以及医院费用。结果:共有892名患者(n = 217微药片切除术,N = 302个椎板切除术,N = 373个椎板切除术)。该患者患有更年轻的患者人口,具有较少的合并条件和更高的非裔美国人比例。每级融合的更多解压缩(P <.001); CH执行更多互互熔点(p = .007)。在TH中进行微量折叠术(P <001)和椎板切除术(P = .014)的成本显着升高,但融合术椎板切除术没有显着差异。在多变量的逐步线性回归分析中,对于单级微量分量术(P <.001)和单级融合(P <0.001)的椎体切除术,但对椎板切除术而没有融合的显着性(P = .052)。 PPC或Readmissions率没有差异。在没有融合的情况下进行椎板切除术的患者更常见于该设施(P = .019)。结论:我们在TH和CH之间提供医院报告的结果。手术环境之间存在患者特征和手术实践的显着差异。尽管医院报告的结果存在少量差异,但TH明显更昂贵。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号