Kozmic Sarah E, Wayne Diane B, Feinglass Joe, Hohmann Samuel F, Barsuk Jeffrey H
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, USA.
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2016 Jan;42(1):34-40. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(16)42004-0.
Physicians increasingly refer thoracentesis procedures to interventional radiology (IR) rather than performing them at the bedside. Factors associated with thoracentesis procedures at university hospitals were studied to determine clinical outcomes by provider specialty.
An administrative database review was performed of patients who underwent an inpatient thoracentesis procedure in hospitals participating in the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) Database from January 2010 through September 2013. The incidence of iatrogenic pneumothorax, mean total hospital costs, and mean length of stay (LOS) were compared by clinical specialty.
There were 113,860 admissions with 132,472 thoracentesis procedures performed on 99,509 patients at 234 UHC hospitals. IR performed 43,783 (33%) thoracentesis procedures; medicine, 22,243 (17%); and pulmonary, 26,887 (20%). The incidence of iatrogenic pneumothorax was 2.8% for IR, 2.9% for medicine, and 3.1% for pulmonary. Medicine and pulmonary had equivalent risk of iatrogenic pneumothorax compared to IR after controlling for clinical covariates. Admissions with medicine and pulmonary procedures were associated with significantly lower costs compared to IR admissions (p < 0.001) after controlling for clinical covariates. Admissions with IR procedures had a mean LOS of 14.1 days; medicine, 13.2 days; and pulmonary, 15.9 days. Admissions with medicine and pulmonary procedures were associated with fewer hospital days when compared to IR in the controlled model (p < 0.001).
Admissions with medicine and pulmonary bedside thoracentesis procedures are as safe and less costly than IR procedures. Shifting IR thoracentesis procedures to the bedside might be a potential way to reduce hospital costs while still ensuring high-quality patient care, provided that portable ultrasound is used.
医生越来越多地将胸腔穿刺术转诊给介入放射科(IR),而非在床边进行操作。本研究旨在探究大学医院中与胸腔穿刺术相关的因素,以确定不同医疗服务提供者专业背景下的临床结局。
对2010年1月至2013年9月期间参与大学卫生系统联盟(UHC)数据库的医院中接受住院胸腔穿刺术的患者进行行政数据库回顾。通过临床专业比较医源性气胸的发生率、平均总住院费用和平均住院时间(LOS)。
在234家UHC医院中,99,509名患者共进行了132,472次胸腔穿刺术,涉及113,860次住院治疗。介入放射科进行了43,783次(33%)胸腔穿刺术;内科进行了22,243次(17%);肺科进行了26,887次(20%)。介入放射科医源性气胸的发生率为2.8%,内科为2.9%,肺科为3.1%。在控制临床协变量后,内科和肺科医源性气胸的风险与介入放射科相当。在控制临床协变量后,内科和肺科操作的住院费用显著低于介入放射科操作(p < 0.001)。介入放射科操作的平均住院时间为14.1天;内科为13.2天;肺科为15.9天。在控制模型中,内科和肺科操作的住院天数比介入放射科少(p < 0.001)。
内科和肺科床边胸腔穿刺术与介入放射科操作一样安全,且成本更低。如果使用便携式超声,将介入放射科胸腔穿刺术转移到床边可能是降低医院成本同时确保高质量患者护理的潜在方法。