Smith D M, Weinberger M, Katz B P, Moore P S
Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis.
Med Care. 1988 Jul;26(7):699-708. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198807000-00005.
A multifaceted intervention was hypothesized to increase postdischarge ambulatory contacts and to reduce nonelective readmissions. Patients (N = 1,001) discharged from the general medicine service were stratified by risk for nonelective readmission and randomized to the control or intervention group. Intervention patients received phone calls from nurses, mailings of appointment reminders and lists of early warning signs, and prompt rescheduling of visit failures. Patients were followed for 6 months, and the results were computed in units per patient per month. The intervention group had 10.4% more total office contacts (0.53 vs 0.48, P = 0.005) than the control group. Although the intervention group had 7.6% fewer nonelective readmission days (0.85 vs 0.92), this was not statistically significant (P = 0.5). Patients in the intervention group at high risk (N = 181) had 28.1% more office visits (0.73 vs 0.57, P less than 0.01) and 31.9% fewer nonelective readmission days (1.13 vs 1.66), but this was also not statistically significant (P = 0.06). Thus, the intervention significantly increased post-discharge contacts, primarily in high-risk patients, but failed to reduce the incidence of nonelective readmission days significantly.
一项多方面的干预措施被假定可增加出院后的门诊接触并减少非选择性再入院。从普通内科出院的患者(N = 1001)按非选择性再入院风险分层,随机分为对照组或干预组。干预组患者收到护士的电话、预约提醒邮件和早期预警信号列表,以及对就诊失败的及时重新安排。对患者进行了6个月的随访,结果以每位患者每月的单位数计算。干预组的总门诊接触比对照组多10.4%(0.53对0.48,P = 0.005)。尽管干预组的非选择性再入院天数少7.6%(0.85对0.92),但这在统计学上并不显著(P = 0.5)。高风险的干预组患者(N = 181)的门诊就诊次数多28.1%(0.73对0.57,P小于0.01),非选择性再入院天数少31.9%(1.13对1.66),但这在统计学上也不显著(P = 0.06)。因此,该干预措施显著增加了出院后的接触,主要是在高风险患者中,但未能显著降低非选择性再入院天数的发生率。