首页> 外文期刊>Urological research >Comparison of two different running models for the shock wave lithotripsy machine in Taipei City Hospital: self-support versus outsourcing cooperation.
【24h】

Comparison of two different running models for the shock wave lithotripsy machine in Taipei City Hospital: self-support versus outsourcing cooperation.

机译:台北市立医院冲击波碎石机的两种不同运行模式的比较:自我支持与外包合作。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

To compare two different running models including self-support and outsourcing cooperation for the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) machine in Taipei City Hospital, we made a retrospective study. Self-support means that the hospital has to buy an SWL machine and get all the payment from SWL. In outsourcing cooperation, the cooperative company provides an SWL machine and shares the payment with the hospital. Between January 2002 and December 2006, we used self-support for the SWL machine, and from January 2007 to December 2008, we used outsourcing cooperation. We used the method of full costing to calculate the cost of SWL, and the break-even point was the lowest number of treatment sessions of SWL to make balance of payments every month. Quality parameters including stone-free rate, retreatment rate, additional procedures and complication rate were evaluated. When outsourcing cooperation was used, there were significantly more treatment sessions of SWL every month than when utilizing self-support (36.3 +/- 5.1 vs. 48.1 +/- 8.4, P = 0.03). The cost of SWL for every treatment session was significantly higher using self-support than with outsourcing cooperation (25027.5 +/- 1789.8 NTDollars vs. 21367.4 +/- 201.0 NTDollars ). The break-even point was 28.3 (treatment sessions) for self-support, and 28.4 for outsourcing cooperation, when the hospital got 40% of the payment, which would decrease if the percentage increased. No significant differences were noticed for stone-free rate, retreatment rate, additional procedures and complication rate of SWL between the two running models. Besides, outsourcing cooperation had lower cost (every treatment session), but a greater number of treatment sessions of SWL every month than self-support.
机译:为了比较台北市立医院体外冲击波碎石机的两种不同运行模式,包括自我支持和外包合作,我们进行了回顾性研究。自给自足意味着医院必须购买SWL机器并从SWL获得所有款项。在外包合作中,合作公司提供SWL机器并与医院共享付款。在2002年1月至2006年12月之间,我们使用了SWL机器的自助服务;从2007年1月至2008年12月,我们使用了外包合作。我们使用全额成本法来计算SWL的成本,收支平衡点是每月进行国际收支平衡的SWL疗程最少的次数。质量参数包括无结石率,再治疗率,附加程序和并发症发生率。使用外包合作时,与使用自我支持时相比,每月使用SWL的疗程明显更多(36.3 +/- 5.1与48.1 +/- 8.4,P = 0.03)。使用自助服务的每个治疗疗程的SWL费用均明显高于外包合作伙伴(25027.5 +/- 1789.8 NT $ vs. 21367.4 +/- 201.0 NT $)。当医院获得40%的付款时,自我支持的收支平衡点是28.3(治疗时间),外包合作的收支平衡点是28.4(如果增加),则收支平衡点将减少。两种运行模型之间的无结石率,再治疗率,附加手术和SWL并发症发生率均无显着差异。此外,外包合作的成本较低(每个疗程),但与自助相比,每月SWL的疗程数量更多。

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