BACKGROUND: Emergency diagnostic and treatment units (EDTUs) may provide an alternative to hospitalization for patients with reversible diseases, such as asthma, who fail to adequately respond to emergency department therapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the medical and cost-effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and quality of life of patients receiving EDTU care for acute asthma compared with inpatient care. METHODS: A prospective, randomized clinical trial performed at 2 urban public hospitals enrolled patients with acute asthma (age range, 18-55 years) not meeting discharge criteria after 3 hours of emergency department therapy. Patients were treated with inhaled adrenergic agonists and steroids in an EDTU for up to 9 hours after randomization or with routine therapy in a hospital ward. Patients were followed up for 8 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Discharge rate from the EDTU, length of stay, relapse rates, days missed from work or school, days incapacitated during waking hours, symptom-free days and nights, nocturnal awakenings, direct medical costs, patients satisfaction, and patient quality of life. RESULTS: The study consisted of 222 patients with asthma. Sixty-five patients (59%) treated in an EDTU were discharged home; the remainder were admitted to the hospital. There were no differences during the follow-up period in relapse rates (P = .74) or in any other morbidities between the EDTU and inpatient groups. There were significant differences in the length of stay, patient satisfaction, and quality of life favoring EDTU care. The mean (+/-SD) cost per patient in the EDTU group was $1202.79 +/- $1343.96, compared with $2247.32 +/- $1110.18 for the control group (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of selected patients with asthma in an EDTU results in the safe discharge of most such patients. This study suggests that quality gains and cost-effective measures can be achieved by the use of such units.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Emergency diagnostic and treatment units (EDTUs) may provide an alternative to hospitalization for patients with reversible diseases, such as asthma, who fail to adequately respond to emergency department therapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the medical and cost-effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and quality of life of patients receiving EDTU care for acute asthma compared with inpatient care. METHODS: A prospective, randomized clinical trial performed at 2 urban public hospitals enrolled patients with acute asthma (age range, 18-55 years) not meeting discharge criteria after 3 hours of emergency department therapy. Patients were treated with inhaled adrenergic agonists and steroids in an EDTU for up to 9 hours after randomization or with routine therapy in a hospital ward. Patients were followed up for 8 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Discharge rate from the EDTU, length of stay, relapse rates, days missed from work or school, days incapacitated during waking hours, symptom-free days and nights, nocturnal awakenings, direct medical costs, patients satisfaction, and patient quality of life. RESULTS: The study consisted of 222 patients with asthma. Sixty-five patients (59%) treated in an EDTU were discharged home; the remainder were admitted to the hospital. There were no differences during the follow-up period in relapse rates (P = .74) or in any other morbidities between the EDTU and inpatient groups. There were significant differences in the length of stay, patient satisfaction, and quality of life favoring EDTU care. The mean (+/-SD) cost per patient in the EDTU group was $1202.79 +/- $1343.96, compared with $2247.32 +/- $1110.18 for the control group (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of selected patients with asthma in an EDTU results in the safe discharge of most such patients. This study suggests that quality gains and cost-effective measures can be achieved by the use of such units.
Authors: Joel F Wallace; Scott R Weingarten; Chiun-Fang Chiou; James M Henning; Andriana A Hohlbauch; Margaret S Richards; Nicole S Herzog; Lior S Lewensztain; Joshua J Ofman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: R J Dockhorn; R A Baumgartner; J A Leff; M Noonan; K Vandormael; W Stricker; D E Weinland; T F Reiss Journal: Thorax Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Camilla Strøm; Jakob S Stefansson; Maria Louise Fabritius; Lars S Rasmussen; Thomas A Schmidt; Janus C Jakobsen Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-08-13