Literature DB >> 16582803

Hospital volume outcome and discharge disposition of burn patients.

Salvatore J Pacella1, David A Butz, Matthew C Comstock, Deborah R Harkins, William M Kuzon, Paul A Taheri.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this investigation was to determine the impact of hospital clinical volume on patient outcomes (i.e., in-hospital mortality, length of stay) and discharge disposition of burn patients using a large nationally representative database.
METHODS: Patient data were obtained from the 1999-2001 National Inpatient Sample using burn diagnosis-related group codes 504 through 511. Hospitals were segregated into high-volume hospitals (treating more than 100 patients per year), medium-volume hospitals (treating 20 to 99 patients per year), and low-volume hospitals (treating fewer than 20 patients per year). Mortality, length of stay, and discharge disposition were catalogued for each diagnosis-related group code and hospital type.
RESULTS: In diagnosis-related group pair 504/505 (most severe), the mortality rate in patients admitted to high-volume hospitals (33.5 percent) was significantly higher than in patients admitted to both medium-volume hospitals (28.8 percent) and low-volume hospitals (11.5 percent) (p = 0.002). Within lower severity diagnosis-related groups, where the mortality rate was lower across all admissions, medium-volume hospitals and high-volume hospitals had a higher proportion of routine discharges to home, a lower need for home care, and a lower proportion of transfers compared with low-volume hospitals. Despite shorter length of stay, across most burn diagnosis-related groups, patients admitted to low-volume hospitals had lower rates of routine discharges and a higher proportion of admissions "with complications."
CONCLUSION: Higher-volume facilities, despite receiving the most severe burn patients, may provide better patient outcomes than lower-volume facilities. The patterns of discharges found at lower-volume facilities may result in higher diagnosis-related group reimbursement "capture" by lower-volume facilities and higher postdischarge resource use.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16582803     DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000204962.85336.51

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  6 in total

1.  Burn center volume makes a difference for burned children.

Authors:  Tina L Palmieri; Sandra Taylor; MaryBeth Lawless; Terese Curri; Soman Sen; David G Greenhalgh
Journal:  Pediatr Crit Care Med       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 3.624

2.  Inter-facility transfer of pediatric burn patients from U.S. Emergency Departments.

Authors:  Sarah A Johnson; Junxin Shi; Jonathan I Groner; Rajan K Thakkar; Renata Fabia; Gail E Besner; Huiyun Xiang; Krista K Wheeler
Journal:  Burns       Date:  2016-08-20       Impact factor: 2.744

3.  Patient outcomes vs. service workload: an analysis of outcomes in the burn service of England and Wales.

Authors:  Neophytos Stylianou; Matthew Carr; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Iain Buchan; Ken Dunn
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 2.655

4.  Volume-outcome relationship on survival and cost benefits in severe burn injury: a retrospective analysis of a Japanese nationwide administrative database.

Authors:  Akira Endo; Atsushi Shiraishi; Yasuhiro Otomo; Kiyohide Fushimi; Kiyoshi Murata
Journal:  J Intensive Care       Date:  2019-01-30

5.  Concept review of regionalized systems of acute care: Is regionalization the next frontier in sepsis care?

Authors:  Nathan T Walton; Nicholas M Mohr
Journal:  J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open       Date:  2022-01-06

6.  Neurosurgeon academic impact is associated with clinical outcomes after clipping of ruptured intracranial aneurysms.

Authors:  Naif M Alotaibi; George M Ibrahim; Justin Wang; Daipayan Guha; Muhammad Mamdani; Tom A Schweizer; R Loch Macdonald
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.