BACKGROUND: Observation services are provided in greatly variant settings. The aim of this study was to reexamine the effectiveness of observation services compared to inpatient units for patients with nonspecific chest pain. HYPOTHESIS: Patients admitted to observation units have similar outcomes to patients admitted to inpatient wards. METHODS: We conducted a claim-based retrospective study for 7549 patients who were admitted to observation and inpatient units. Both models of care were evaluated using the 1-year costs related to chest pain/cardiovascular diseases, and primary and secondary outcomes. Primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, stroke, or cardiac arrest, whereas secondary outcomes included revascularization procedures, emergency room revisits, and hospitalization due to cardiovascular diseases. RESULTS: Two-thirds (65.7%, n = 4962) of patients in the sample had observation services, and 34.3% (n = 2587) were admitted to inpatient care. Of the inpatient group, 4.9% experienced a total of 167 primary outcomes, whereas 14.1% experienced a total of 571 secondary outcomes. In comparison, 3.8% of the observation group experienced 238 primary outcomes, and 10.3% experienced 737 secondary outcomes. After adjusting for baseline characteristics using Cox proportional hazard and quantile regression models, no differences between the 2 groups were detected in the 1-year costs of cardiovascular services and primary or secondary outcomes. Patients who had observation services were 79% (95% confidence interval: 1.24-2.58) more likely to have revascularization procedures compared to those admitted to inpatient care. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who had observation services had similar outcomes and 1-year costs compared to patients admitted to inpatient wards.
BACKGROUND: Observation services are provided in greatly variant settings. The aim of this study was to reexamine the effectiveness of observation services compared to inpatient units for patients with nonspecific chest pain. HYPOTHESIS: Patients admitted to observation units have similar outcomes to patients admitted to inpatient wards. METHODS: We conducted a claim-based retrospective study for 7549 patients who were admitted to observation and inpatient units. Both models of care were evaluated using the 1-year costs related to chest pain/cardiovascular diseases, and primary and secondary outcomes. Primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, stroke, or cardiac arrest, whereas secondary outcomes included revascularization procedures, emergency room revisits, and hospitalization due to cardiovascular diseases. RESULTS: Two-thirds (65.7%, n = 4962) of patients in the sample had observation services, and 34.3% (n = 2587) were admitted to inpatient care. Of the inpatient group, 4.9% experienced a total of 167 primary outcomes, whereas 14.1% experienced a total of 571 secondary outcomes. In comparison, 3.8% of the observation group experienced 238 primary outcomes, and 10.3% experienced 737 secondary outcomes. After adjusting for baseline characteristics using Cox proportional hazard and quantile regression models, no differences between the 2 groups were detected in the 1-year costs of cardiovascular services and primary or secondary outcomes. Patients who had observation services were 79% (95% confidence interval: 1.24-2.58) more likely to have revascularization procedures compared to those admitted to inpatient care. CONCLUSIONS:Patients who had observation services had similar outcomes and 1-year costs compared to patients admitted to inpatient wards.
Authors: Michael A Ross; Jason M Hockenberry; Ryan Mutter; Marguerite Barrett; Matthew Wheatley; Stephen R Pitts Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Michael W Cullen; Guy S Reeder; Michael E Farkouh; Stephen L Kopecky; Peter A Smars; Thomas R Behrenbeck; Thomas G Allison Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Michael A Ross; Taruna Aurora; Louis Graff; Pawan Suri; Rachel O'Malley; Aderonke Ojo; Steve Bohan; Carol Clark Journal: Crit Pathw Cardiol Date: 2012-09
Authors: Ann M Sheehy; Ben Graf; Sreedevi Gangireddy; Robert Hoffman; Mary Ehlenbach; Cynthia Heidke; Sheilah Fields; Barbara Liegel; Elizabeth A Jacobs Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-11-25 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Arjun K Venkatesh; Benjamin P Geisler; Jennifer J Gibson Chambers; Christopher W Baugh; J Stephen Bohan; Jeremiah D Schuur Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-09-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kumar Dharmarajan; Li Qin; Maggie Bierlein; Jennie E S Choi; Zhenqiu Lin; Nihar R Desai; Erica S Spatz; Harlan M Krumholz; Arjun K Venkatesh Journal: BMJ Date: 2017-06-20