| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Cheng, I, et al.
(författare)
-
Factors associated with failure of emergency wait-time targets for high acuity discharges and intensive care unit admissions
- 2018
-
Ingår i: CJEM. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1481-8043 .- 1481-8035. ; 20:1, s. 112-124
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- ObjectiveOntario established emergency department length-of-stay (EDLOS) targets but has difficulty achieving them. We sought to determine predictors of target time failure for discharged high acuity patients and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions.MethodsThis was a retrospective, observational study of 2012 Sunnybrook Hospital emergency department data. The main outcome measure was failing to meet government EDLOS targets for high acuity discharges and ICU emergency admissions. The secondary outcome measures examined factors for low acuity discharges and all admissions, as well as a run chart for 2015 – 2016 ICU admissions. Multiple logistic regression models were created for admissions, ICU admissions, and low and high acuity discharges. Predictor variables were at the patient level from emergency department registries.ResultsFor discharged high acuity patients, factors predicting EDLOS target failure were having physician initial assessment duration (PIAD)>2 hours (OR 5.63 [5.22-6.06]), consultation request (OR 10.23 [9.38-11.14]), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (OR 19.33 [12.94-28.87]), computed tomography (CT) (OR 4.24 [3.92-4.59]), and ultrasound (US) (OR 3.47 [3.13-3.83]). For ICU admissions, factors predicting EDLOS target failure were bed request duration (BRD)>6 hours (OR 364.27 [43.20-3071.30]) and access block (AB)>1 hour (OR 217.27 [30.62-1541.63]). For discharged low acuity patients, factors predicting failure for the 4-hour target were PIAD>2 hours (OR 15.80 [13.35-18.71]), consultation (OR 20.98 [14.10-31.22]), MRI (OR 31.68 [6.03-166.54]), CT (OR 16.48 [10.07-26.98]), and troponin I (OR 13.37 [6.30-28.37]).ConclusionSunnybrook factors predicting failure of targets for high acuity discharges and ICU admissions were hospital-controlled. Hospitals should individualize their approach to shortening EDLOS by analysing its patient population and resource demands.
|
|
| 4. |
- Cheng, I, et al.
(författare)
-
Cost-effectiveness of a physician-nurse supplementary triage assessment team at an academic tertiary care emergency department
- 2016
-
Ingår i: CJEM. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1481-8043 .- 1481-8035. ; 18:3, s. 191-204
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of physician-nurse supplementary triage assistance team (MDRNSTAT) from a hospital and patient perspective.MethodsThis was a cost-effectiveness evaluation of a cluster randomized control trial comparing the MDRNSTAT with nurse-only triage in the emergency department (ED) between the hours of 0800 and 1500. Cost was MDRNSTAT salary. Revenue was from Ontario’s Pay-for-Results and patient volume-case mix payment programs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was based on MDRNSTAT cost and three consequence assessments: 1) per additional patient-seen; 2) per physician initial assessment (PIA) hour saved; and 3) per ED length of stay (EDLOS) hour saved. Patient opportunity cost was determined. Patient satisfaction was quantified by a cost-benefit ratio. A sensitivity analysis extrapolating MDRNSTAT to different working hours, salary, and willingness-to-pay data was performed.ResultsThe added cost of the MDRNSTAT was $3,597.27 [$1,729.47 to ∞] per additional patient-seen, $75.37 [$67.99 to $105.30] per PIA hour saved, and $112.99 [$74.68 to $251.43] per EDLOS hour saved. From the hospital perspective, the cost-benefit ratio was 38.6 [19.0 to ∞] and net present value of –$447,996 [–$435,646 to –$459,900]. For patients, the cost-benefit ratio for satisfaction was 2.8 [2.3 to 4.6]. If MDRNSTAT performance were consistently implemented from noon to midnight, it would be more cost-effective.ConclusionsThe MDRNSTAT is not a cost-effective daytime strategy but appears to be more feasible during time periods with higher patient volume, such as late morning to evening.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Wannheden, C., et al.
(författare)
-
Digital Health Technologies Enabling Partnerships in Chronic Care Management : Scoping Review
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Medical Internet Research. - : JMIR Publications Inc.. - 1438-8871. ; 24:8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: An increasing number of patients expect and want to play a greater role in their treatment and care decisions. This emphasizes the need to adopt collaborative health care practices, which implies collaboration among interprofessional health care teams and patients, their families, caregivers, and communities. In recent years, digital health technologies that support self-care and collaboration between the community and health care providers (ie, participatory health technologies) have received increasing attention. However, knowledge regarding the features of such technologies that support effective patient-professional partnerships is still limited. Objective: This study aimed to map and assess published studies on participatory health technologies intended to support partnerships among patients, caregivers, and health care professionals in chronic care, focusing specifically on identifying the main features of these technologies. Methods: A scoping review covering scientific publications in English between January 2008 and December 2020 was performed. We searched PubMed and Web of Science databases. Peer-reviewed qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies that evaluated digital health technologies for patient-professional partnerships in chronic care settings were included. The data were charted and analyzed thematically. The PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist was used. Results: This review included 32 studies, reported in 34 papers. The topic of participatory health technologies experienced a slightly increasing trend across publication years, with most papers originating from the United States and Norway. Diabetes and cardiovascular diseases were the most common conditions addressed. Of the 32 studies, 12 (38%) evaluated the influence of participatory health technologies on partnerships, mostly with positive outcomes, although we also identified how partnership relationships and the nature of collaborative work could be challenged when the roles and expectations between users were unclear. Six common features of participatory health technologies were identified: patient-professional communication, self-monitoring, tailored self-care support, self-care education, care planning, and community forums for peer-to-peer interactions. Conclusions: Our findings emphasize the importance of clarifying mutual expectations and carefully considering the implications that the introduction of participatory health technologies may have on the work of patients and health care professionals, both individually and in collaboration. A knowledge gap remains regarding the use of participatory health technologies to effectively support patient-professional partnerships in chronic care management.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
