Wachter Robert M, Goldman Lee
Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, Box 0120, San Francisco, CA 94143-0120, USA.
JAMA. 2002;287(4):487-94. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.4.487.
We originally described the hospitalist model of inpatient care in 1996; since then, the model has experienced tremendous growth. This growth has important clinical, financial, educational, and policy implications.
To review data regarding the effect of hospitalists on resource use, quality of care, satisfaction, and teaching; and to analyze the impact of hospitalists on the health care system and frame key issues facing the movement.
We searched MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 1996 to September 2001 for studies comparing hospitalist care with an appropriate control group in terms of resource use, quality, or satisfaction outcomes.
We extracted information regarding study design, nature of hospitalist and control groups, analytical strategies, and key outcomes.
Most studies found that implementation of hospitalist programs was associated with significant reductions in resource use, usually measured as hospital costs (average decrease, 13.4%) or average length of stay (average decrease, 16.6%). The few studies that failed to demonstrate reductions usually used atypical control groups. Although several studies found improved outcomes, such as inpatient mortality and readmission rates, these results were inconsistent. Patient satisfaction was generally preserved, while limited data supported positive effects on teaching. Although concerns about inpatient-outpatient information transfer remain, recent physician surveys indicate general acceptance of the model.
Empirical research supports the premise that hospitalists improve inpatient efficiency without harmful effects on quality or patient satisfaction. Education may be improved. In part catalyzed by these data, the clinical use of hospitalists is growing rapidly, and hospitalists are also assuming prominent roles as teachers, researchers, and quality leaders. The hospitalist field has now achieved many of the attributes of traditional medical specialties and seems destined to continue to grow.
我们于1996年首次描述了住院医师模式的住院治疗;从那时起,该模式经历了巨大的发展。这种发展具有重要的临床、财务、教育和政策意义。
回顾有关住院医师对资源利用、医疗质量、满意度和教学影响的数据;分析住院医师对医疗保健系统的影响,并阐述该模式面临的关键问题。
我们检索了1996年至2001年9月期间的MEDLINE、BIOSIS、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆,以查找比较住院医师治疗与适当对照组在资源利用、质量或满意度结果方面的研究。
我们提取了有关研究设计、住院医师和对照组的性质、分析策略和关键结果的信息。
大多数研究发现,实施住院医师项目与资源利用的显著减少相关,通常以医院成本(平均降低13.4%)或平均住院时间(平均降低16.6%)来衡量。少数未能证明减少的研究通常使用非典型对照组。尽管有几项研究发现结果有所改善,如住院死亡率和再入院率,但这些结果并不一致。患者满意度总体保持不变,而支持对教学有积极影响的数据有限。尽管对住院患者与门诊患者信息传递仍存在担忧,但最近的医生调查表明该模式已得到普遍认可。
实证研究支持这样的前提,即住院医师提高了住院效率,而对质量或患者满意度没有有害影响。教育可能会得到改善。部分受这些数据的推动,住院医师的临床应用正在迅速增长,住院医师在教学、研究和质量领导方面也发挥着重要作用。住院医师领域现已具备传统医学专业的许多特征,似乎注定会继续发展。