Literature DB >> 10737450

Multiple approaches to assessing the effects of delays for hip fracture patients in the United States and Canada.

V Ho1, B H Hamilton, L L Roos.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the determinants of postsurgery length of stay (LOS) and inpatient mortality in the United States (California and Massachusetts) and Canada (Manitoba and Quebec). DATA SOURCES/STUDY
SETTING: Patient discharge abstracts from the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Nationwide Inpatient Sample and from provincial health ministries. STUDY
DESIGN: Descriptive statistics by state or province, pooled competing risks hazards models (which control for censoring of LOS and inpatient mortality data), and instrumental variables (which control for confounding in observational data) were used to analyze the effect of wait time for hip fracture surgery on postsurgery outcomes. DATA EXTRACTIONS: Data were extracted for patients admitted to an acute care hospital with a primary diagnosis of hip fracture who received hip fracture surgery, were admitted from home or the emergency room, were age 45 or older, stayed in the hospital 365 days or less, and were not trauma patients. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: The descriptive data indicate that wait times for surgery are longer in the two Canadian provinces than in the two U.S. states. Canadians also have longer postsurgery LOS and higher inpatient mortality. Yet the competing risks hazards model indicates that the effect of wait time on postsurgery LOS is small in magnitude. Instrumental variables analysis reveals that wait time for surgery is not a significant predictor of postsurgery length of stay. The hazards model reveals significant differences in mortality across regions. However, both the regressions and the instrumental variables indicate that these differences are not attributable to wait time for surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Statistical models that account for censoring and confounding yield conclusions that differ from those implied by descriptive statistics in administrative data. Longer wait time for hip fracture surgery does not explain the difference in postsurgery outcomes across countries.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10737450      PMCID: PMC1975661     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  16 in total

1.  A policy analysis of hospital waiting lists.

Authors:  S Globerman
Journal:  J Policy Anal Manage       Date:  1991

2.  Mortality after hip fracture: results of operation within 12 h of admission.

Authors:  C Bredahl; B Nyholm; K B Hindsholm; J S Mortensen; A S Olesen
Journal:  Injury       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 2.586

3.  The care of elderly patients with hip fracture. Changes since implementation of the prospective payment system.

Authors:  J F Fitzgerald; P S Moore; R S Dittus
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1988-11-24       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Results of early and delayed surgical fixation of hip fractures in the elderly: a comparative retrospective study.

Authors:  D Hoerer; G Volpin; H Stein
Journal:  Bull Hosp Jt Dis       Date:  1993

5.  Comorbidities, complications, and coding bias. Does the number of diagnosis codes matter in predicting in-hospital mortality?

Authors:  L I Iezzoni; S M Foley; J Daley; J Hughes; E S Fisher; T Heeren
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992 Apr 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Estimating surgical volume--outcome relationships applying survival models: accounting for frailty and hospital fixed effects.

Authors:  B H Hamilton; V H Hamilton
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1997 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.046

7.  Hip fracture mortality. Relation to age, treatment, preoperative illness, time of surgery, and complications.

Authors:  J E Kenzora; R E McCarthy; J D Lowell; C B Sledge
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1984-06       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Coronary artery bypass surgery: the relationship between inhospital mortality rate and surgical volume after controlling for clinical risk factors.

Authors:  E L Hannan; H Kilburn; H Bernard; J F O'Donnell; G Lukacik; E P Shields
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  British Columbia sends patients to Seattle for coronary artery surgery. Bypassing the queue in Canada.

Authors:  S J Katz; H F Mizgala; H G Welch
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1991-08-28       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Factors affecting hip fracture mortality.

Authors:  S B Sexson; J T Lehner
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 2.512

View more
  25 in total

1.  Does health systems thinking guide health services actions?

Authors:  J R Feussner; J G Demakis
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Drawing policy conclusions from uncontrolled studies.

Authors:  Alexander C Tsai
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-02-03       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Constructing an episode of care from acute hospitalization records for studying effects of timing of hip fracture surgery.

Authors:  Katie J Sheehan; Boris Sobolev; Pierre Guy; Eric Bohm; Erik Hellsten; Jason M Sutherland; Lisa Kuramoto; Susan Jaglal
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2015-08-11       Impact factor: 3.494

4.  Quality effects of operative delay on mortality in hip fracture treatment.

Authors:  R Sund; A Liski
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2005-10

Review 5.  Instrumental variable methods in comparative safety and effectiveness research.

Authors:  M Alan Brookhart; Jeremy A Rassen; Sebastian Schneeweiss
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.890

6.  Managing care? Medicare managed care and patient use of cardiologists.

Authors:  Marco D Huesch
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-12-30       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 7.  Does timing of surgery matter in fragility hip fractures?

Authors:  F Leung; T W Lau; K Kwan; S P Chow; A W C Kung
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-11-06       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Concurrent prediction of hospital mortality and length of stay from risk factors on admission.

Authors:  David E Clark; Louise M Ryan
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.402

9.  Does aggressive care following acute myocardial infarction reduce mortality? Analysis with instrumental variables to compare effectiveness in Canadian and United States patient populations.

Authors:  Christine A Beck; John Penrod; Theresa W Gyorkos; Stan Shapiro; Louise Pilote
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.402

10.  A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; Pj Devereaux; Joel Lexchin; Samuel B Stone; Armine Yalnizyan; David Himmelstein; Steffie Woolhandler; Qi Zhou; Laurie J Goldsmith; Deborah J Cook; Ted Haines; Christina Lacchetti; John N Lavis; Terrence Sullivan; Ed Mills; Shelley Kraus; Neera Bhatnagar
Journal:  Open Med       Date:  2007-04-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.