Hirsch A, De Crémoux H, Bloch-Lemoine M, Bignon J, Lévy E
Service de Pneumologie, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris.
Rev Mal Respir. 1990;7(4):331-5.
The authors report the results of a non-randomised study comparing the efficacy (in terms of confirmation of the diagnosis, the extent of disease, and measurements of airflow obstruction, and of the therapeutic index), and the efficiency in 58 patients suffering from lung cancer as well as 62 patients suffering from chronic airflow obstruction, and 42 asthmatics. These patients were seen in one of three possible services of a respiratory medicine department of a university hospital. The possibilities were inpatient stay in hospital, day hospital, or outpatient consultation. All the patients except one were totally independent, and could be taken into anyone of the three hospital services. The diagnostic efficacy for lung cancer was independent of the type of service used. The day hospital was four times more efficient than inpatient care for lung cancer, and consultation was 3.5 and 4.6 times more efficient than the day hospital for asthma and chronic airflow obstruction respectively. The balance of efficiency and the index of satisfaction experienced by the patients on the service used accentuated these differences.
作者报告了一项非随机研究的结果，该研究比较了58例肺癌患者、62例慢性气流阻塞患者和42例哮喘患者在诊断确认、疾病范围、气流阻塞测量以及治疗指数方面的疗效和效率。这些患者在一所大学医院呼吸内科的三种可能的服务科室之一就诊。这三种服务分别是住院、日间医院或门诊咨询。除一名患者外，所有患者完全独立，可进入这三种医院服务中的任何一种。肺癌的诊断疗效与所使用的服务类型无关。日间医院对肺癌的治疗效率比住院治疗高四倍，而门诊咨询对哮喘和慢性气流阻塞的治疗效率分别比日间医院高3.5倍和4.6倍。效率平衡以及患者对所使用服务的满意度指数进一步凸显了这些差异。
