Literature DB >> 9417008

Prospective evaluation of a clinical guideline recommending hospital length of stay in upper gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage.

J A Hay1, L Maldonado, S R Weingarten, A G Ellrodt.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Upper gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage (UGIH) is a common and potentially life-threatening disorder. Resource utilization can vary without adverse effect on patient outcome. Clinical practice guidelines are a potential solution to reduce variation in practice while improving patient outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To validate prospectively the safety, acceptability, and impact of a clinical practice guideline defining the medically appropriate length of stay (LOS) for patients hospitalized with UGIH.
DESIGN: Prospective, controlled time-series study with an alternate-month design. Outcome surveyors and patients were blinded to study group allocation. GUIDELINE: A retrospectively validated scoring system using 4 independent variables: hemodynamics, time from bleeding, comorbidity, and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) findings to predict risk of adverse events. The quantitative risk for the low-risk subset was 0.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0%-2.0%) for subsequent complications and 0% (95% CI, 0.0%-0.9%) for life-threatening complications from this retrospective evaluation.
SETTING: A 1000-bed, not-for-profit, university-affiliated teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive adult patients hospitalized for acute UGIH. INTERVENTION: Concurrent feedback of guideline recommendation (same-day hospital discharge) to physicians caring for patients at low risk for complication. No risk information was provided during control months.
RESULTS: Seventy percent (209/299) of UGIH patients achieved low-risk status according to the guideline and were therefore potentially suitable for early discharge from the hospital. Providing real-time quantitative risk information (intervention group only) was associated with an increase in guideline compliance from 30% to 70% (P<.001) and a decrease in mean (SD) LOS from 4.6 (3.5) days to 2.9 (1.3) days (mean reduction of 1.7 days per patient; P<.001). No differences in complications, patient health status, or patient satisfaction were found when measured 1 month after discharge. An independent variable predicting decreased hospital LOS for low-risk UGIH patients was early EGD.
CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the clinical practice guideline safely reduced hospital LOS for selected low-risk patients with acute UGIH. Further prospective validation in other settings is warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9417008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  21 in total

Review 1.  Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the elderly: aetiology, diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  Asma Ahmed; Adrian J Stanley
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.923

2.  Critical pathways for post-emergency outpatient diagnosis and treatment: tools to improve the value of emergency care.

Authors:  Jeremiah D Schuur; Christopher W Baugh; Erik P Hess; Joshua A Hilton; Jesse M Pines; Brent R Asplin
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.451

3.  Comparison of the Effectiveness of Interventional Endoscopy in Bleeding Peptic Ulcer Disease according to the Timing of Endoscopy.

Authors:  Hyun Seok Cho; Dong Soo Han; Sang Bong Ahn; Tae Jun Byun; Tae Yeob Kim; Chang Soo Eun; Yong Cheol Jeon; Joo Hyun Sohn
Journal:  Gut Liver       Date:  2009-12-31       Impact factor: 4.519

4.  Endoscopic Treatment of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

Authors:  Aric J Hui; Joseph J Y Sung
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-04

5.  Do hospitalists affect clinical outcomes and efficiency for patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH)?

Authors:  Jorge T Go; Mary Vaughan-Sarrazin; Andrew Auerbach; Jeffrey Schnipper; Tosha B Wetterneck; David Gonzalez; David Meltzer; Peter J Kaboli
Journal:  J Hosp Med       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.960

Review 6.  Update on risk scoring systems for patients with upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage.

Authors:  Adrian J Stanley
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-06-14       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  Comparison of Three Risk Scores to Predict Outcomes of Severe Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

Authors:  Marine Camus; Dennis M Jensen; Gordon V Ohning; Thomas O Kovacs; Rome Jutabha; Kevin A Ghassemi; Gustavo A Machicado; Gareth S Dulai; Mary E Jensen; Jeffrey A Gornbein
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 3.062

8.  Impact of a bleeding care pathway in the management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Authors:  Khalid Mumtaz; Lubna Kamani; Saeed Hamid; Shahab Abid; Hasnain A Shah; Wasim Jafri
Journal:  Indian J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-05-17

9.  Etiology and adverse outcome predictors of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in 589 patients in Nepal.

Authors:  Umid Kumar Shrestha; Subash Sapkota
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 3.199

10.  The role of rapid endoscopy for high-risk patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Authors:  Laura E Targownik; Sanjay Murthy; Leila Keyvani; Shauna Leeson
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 3.522

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.