首页> 外文期刊>Phlebology >The impact of insurance company mandated compression stocking trial on rate of intervention in patients with symptomatic venous reflux disease.
【24h】

The impact of insurance company mandated compression stocking trial on rate of intervention in patients with symptomatic venous reflux disease.

机译:保险公司要求进行压缩放养试验对有症状的静脉反流病患者的干预率产生影响。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE: Insurance companies have criteria for a venous intervention to be a covered procedure, including symptoms, vein size, and a trial of conservative therapy with compression stockings. The goal of this study was to see the impact of such mandated stocking use on ultimate intervention. METHOD: A retrospective review was done of prospectively gathered data entered in the electronic medical record. Two-hundred consecutive new patients evaluated at our vein center were included. RESULTS: Forty-four of the 200 patients did not require any procedures and 39 patients had procedures scheduled for small or asymptomatic venous changes that did not meet insurance criteria. This left 117 patients with venous symptoms in whom evaluation concluded that a corrective procedure could be performed. These interventions included largely radiofrequency ablation and phlebectomy. Of these 117 patients, 48 had previously used compression stockings. In the remaining 69 patients, stockings were provided on the day of initial consultation and these 69 patients served as the subjects for this review. At three month follow up, one patient reported the stockings help enough that she did not want to pursue correction. Two patients had continued pain and were planning correction once other unrelated issues resolved. Three patients said they never wore the stockings. Sixty-one patients had procedures performed. The average length of stocking use in patients who chose corrective procedures was 103 days. One patient could not be reached. CONCLUSION: Of the patients that reported they used the stockings as prescribed, one chose chronic stocking therapy and 63 patients either had procedures or were planning procedures. Use of prescription stockings was effective in avoiding intervention in one of 64 cases (2%), despite an average trial of 103 days. These results cast doubt on the merits of the use of an insurance company mandated stocking trial.
机译:目的:保险公司有一项将静脉干预纳入承保范围的标准,包括症状,静脉大小以及采用加压袜进行保守治疗的试验。这项研究的目的是观察这种强制性放养对最终干预的影响。方法:对电子病历中输入的预期收集数据进行了回顾性审查。包括在我们的静脉中心评估的连续200名新患者。结果:200例患者中有44例不需要任何程序,39例患者计划进行的小或无症状静脉改变的程序不符合保险标准。剩下的117位有静脉症状的患者在评估中得出结论,可以执行纠正措施。这些干预措施主要包括射频消融和静脉摘除术。在这117位患者中,有48位以前曾使用过压力袜。在其余的69位患者中,在初诊时就提供了长袜,这69位患者作为本次回顾的对象。在三个月的随访中,一名患者报告了袜子的帮助,以至于她不想进行矫正。两名患者持续疼痛,一旦其他不相关的问题解决,他们正在计划矫正。三名患者说他们从不穿袜子。六十一名患者接受了手术。选择纠正措施的患者的平均库存使用时间为103天。无法联系到一名患者。结论:在报告他们按规定使用了长袜的患者中,有一个选择了长期放养疗法,有63名患者已经过手术或正在计划手术。尽管平均试用期为103天,但使用处方袜有效避免了64例病例中的一种(2%),避免了干预。这些结果使人怀疑使用保险公司委托进行的备货审判的好处。

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