Literature DB >> 2585157

Pursuit of abnormal coagulation screening tests generates modest hidden preoperative costs.

J B Bushick1, J M Eisenberg, J Kinman, R D Cebul, J S Schwartz.   

Abstract

To measure the follow-up costs of preoperative coagulation screening tests, the authors studied 829 consecutive patients undergoing inpatient orthopedic surgery. The results of the initial prothrombin and activated partial thromboplastin time tests were divided into three groups: normal; abnormal above the hospital laboratory's upper limit of normal but below an "action limit"; and abnormal above an action limit. Patients with abnormal preoperative coagulation screening test results were matched on the basis of operative procedure and age with patients who had normal results. The matched groups of patients were compared according to preoperative length of stay and the cost of subsequent related preoperative testing. The average cost of follow-up preoperative testing for patients with abnormal screening test results was $5.05, compared with $0.58 for patients with normal screening results. The difference in average preoperative lengths of stay was not statistically significant. The attributable cost of evaluating an abnormal result added 3% to the cost of the initial coagulation screening program. This represents an average preoperative cost of $0.36 per patient in addition to the cost of the screening tests themselves.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2585157     DOI: 10.1007/bf02599547

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  25 in total

1.  A clinical study of the lupus anticoagulant.

Authors:  M A Schleider; R L Nachman; E A Jaffe; M Coleman
Journal:  Blood       Date:  1976-10       Impact factor: 22.113

2.  The "abnormal" screening laboratory results. Its effect on physician and patient.

Authors:  L J Schneiderman; L DeSalvo; S Baylor; P L Wolf
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1972-01

3.  Partial thromboplastin time as a screening test.

Authors:  J A Robbins; S D Rose
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  The value of preoperative screening investigations in otherwise healthy individuals.

Authors:  J M Turnbull; C Buck
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1987-06

5.  Preoperative evaluation of the healthy patient.

Authors:  J A Robbins; A I Mushlin
Journal:  Med Clin North Am       Date:  1979-11       Impact factor: 5.456

6.  Cost effectiveness of multiphasic screening: old controversies and a new rationale.

Authors:  M Werner; C H Altshuler
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  1981-02       Impact factor: 3.466

7.  Common and correctable errors in diagnostic test ordering.

Authors:  A R Martin
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1982-05

8.  Clinching the diagnosis: assessment of hemostatic function.

Authors:  J Koutts
Journal:  Pathology       Date:  1985-10       Impact factor: 5.306

9.  Lupus anticoagulant: an analysis of the clinical and laboratory features of 219 cases.

Authors:  D A Gastineau; F J Kazmier; W L Nichols; E J Bowie
Journal:  Am J Hematol       Date:  1985-07       Impact factor: 10.047

10.  The usefulness of preoperative laboratory screening.

Authors:  E B Kaplan; L B Sheiner; A J Boeckmann; M F Roizen; S L Beal; S N Cohen; C D Nicoll
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1985-06-28       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  2 in total

1.  PREOPERATIVE BLEEDING TIME AND CLOTTING TIME TESTS :USEFUL OR WASTEFUL?

Authors:  S Gokhale
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2011-07-21

2.  Usefulness of Perioperative Laboratory Tests in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: Are They Necessary for All Patients?

Authors:  Marc R Angerame; David C Holst; Alexandria Phocas; Michael A Williams; Douglas A Dennis; Jason M Jennings
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2021-01-30
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.