| Literature DB >> 17540015 |
Pol De Vos1, Isabel Barroso, Armando Rodríguez, Mariano Bonet, Patrick Van der Stuyft.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the last decades hospital at home (HaH) programmes have been set up in many, mainly European, countries. The Cuban HaH programme is not hospital driven, but the responsibility of the first line health services, and family doctors play a pivotal role.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2007 PMID: 17540015 PMCID: PMC1894963 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-76
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Hospital at home admissions and family doctor contacts by study area (July 2001 – June 2002)
| 225 | 287 | 190 | 135 | |
| 8247 | 10759 | 5513 | 9481 | |
| 0,027 | 0,027 | 0,035 | 0,014 | |
| 8,4 | 4,1 | 3,2 | 3,1 | |
| 0,176 | 0,170 | 0,483 | 0,095 | |
| 2,1% | 4,1% | 15% | 3% | |
| Average number per HaH episode | 6,5 | 6,3 | 13,8 | 6,8 |
(ppy) = per person and per year
(*) = total of preventive and curative family doctor contacts
Hospital at home admissions: sex and age specific numbers and rates (per person year) by study area (July 2001 – June 2002)
| 23 | 0,479 | 26 | 0,426 | 26 | 0,295 | 27 | 0,325 | 10 | 0,357 | 4 | 0,174 | 5 | 0,152 | 5 | 0,100 | |
| 19 | 0,092 | 17 | 0,098 | 28 | 0,103 | 16 | 0,070 | 4 | 0,032 | 4 | 0,028 | 11 | 0,061 | 13 | 0,062 | |
| 14 | 0,024 | 9 | 0,018 | 6 | 0,008 | 10 | 0,015 | 10 | 0,027 | 3 | 0,008 | 10 | 0,019 | 4 | 0,008 | |
| 3 | 0,006 | 8 | 0,017 | 3 | 0,004 | 13 | 0,021 | 7 | 0,019 | 23 | 0,070 | 2 | 0,004 | 5 | 0,012 | |
| 8 | 0,005 | 26 | 0,018 | 21 | 0,011 | 54 | 0,028 | 19 | 0,016 | 63 | 0,058 | 6 | 0,003 | 26 | 0,015 | |
| 5 | 0,010 | 5 | 0,010 | 7 | 0,011 | 8 | 0,011 | 6 | 0,021 | 6 | 0,021 | 5 | 0,007 | 6 | 0,010 | |
| 32 | 0,036 | 30 | 0,037 | 34 | 0,037 | 34 | 0,029 | 15 | 0,030 | 16 | 0,041 | 12 | 0,010 | 25 | 0,027 | |
| 104 | 0,024 | 121 | 0,030 | 125 | 0,024 | 162 | 0,030 | 71 | 0,025 | 119 | 0,045 | 51 | 0,010 | 84 | 0,019 | |
Most important reasons for admission in the HaH programme by study area (July 2001 – June 2002)
| (Broncho)pneumonia | 47 | 31 | 6 | 24 | |
| High respiratory infection | 10 | 48 | 22 | 23 | |
| Bronchitis and COPD | 16 | 4 | 14 | 2 | |
| Asthma | 2 | 5 | 5 | 3 | |
| Other | 0 | 5 | 3 | 3 | |
| Pelvic Inflammatory Disease | 1 | 9 | 1 | 0 | |
| Complications of pregnancy | 6 | 17 | 30 | 10 | |
| Complications of postpartum | 5 | 0 | 7 | 4 | |
| Intestinal infections | 24 | 17 | 2 | 10 | |
| Hepatitis | 0 | 8 | 1 | 2 | |
| Gastric and duodenal ulcer | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |
| Unstable hypertension | 1 | 8 | 11 | 3 | |
| Ischemic heart disease | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | |
| Chronic heart insufficiency | 5 | 1 | 0 | 3 | |
| Peripheral circulatory problems | 4 | 4 | 11 | 2 | |
| Others and unspecified | 0 | 6 | 0 | 1 | |
Figure 1Length of stay in the Hospital at home programme by study area (July 2001 – June 2002). The boxplot diagram shows the median, interquartile range, 1,5 × interquartile range, and outliers. Three observations are omitted (Fomento), with a duration of 67 days, 82 days, and 97 days.
Figure 2Length of stay in the Hospital at home programme for frequent reasons for admission (July 2001 – June 2002). The boxplot diagram shows the median, interquartile range, 1,5 × interquartile range, and outliers. Two gynaeco-obstetrical observations (67 and 82 days) and one palliative care observation (97 days) are omitted (Fomento).