Suppr超能文献

低危儿科急诊患者的检验申请实践模式差异。

Practice Pattern Variation in Test Ordering for Low-Acuity Pediatric Emergency Department Patients.

出版信息

Pediatr Emerg Care. 2021 Mar 1;37(3):e116-e123. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0000000000001637.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Rising costs in healthcare have focused attention on interventions to optimize efficiency of patient care, including decreasing unnecessary diagnostic testing. The primary objective of this study was to determine the variability of laboratory and radiology testing among licensed independent providers (LIPs) with different training backgrounds treating low-acuity patients in a pediatric emergency department (PED).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of the electronic health records of all encounters with patients 21 years or younger, triaged as low-acuity, visiting 2 urban, academic PEDs from January 2012 to December 2013. We calculated frequency of orders for specific tests, including complete blood counts, aerobic blood cultures, urine cultures, and chest radiographs. Bivariable analyses were used to measure associations of test ordering between these LIP dyad groups: physician versus nurse practitioner (NP); physicians with pediatric emergency medicine fellowship training (PEM) versus physicians without PEM training and physicians with at least 5 years since residency graduation versus less than 5 years. We used multivariable logistic regression to adjust for potential confounders, including ED location, trainee co-management, and patient characteristics. We also performed sensitivity analyses by location.

RESULTS

There were 148,570 total encounters treated by 12 NPs and 144 physicians, of whom 60 were PEM physicians. Seventy-three physicians had 5 or more years of experience. Testing rates per patient encounter ranged from 0% to 40% for individual providers. In bivariable analyses, testing was more likely when the LIP was a physician (odds ratio [OR] = 1.2, 95% confidence interval = 1.1-1.2) or PEM trained (OR = 1.3, 1.2-1.3). In multivariable analyses, testing was more likely for encounters with PEM providers (adjusted OR [AdjOR] = 1.2, 1.1-1.3). A sensitivity analysis on a subset of encounters seen exclusively at our PED-based urgent care revealed that testing was also more likely for encounters seen by PEM physicians (AdjOR = 1.5, 1.4-1.7) and with NPs (AdjOR = 1.2, 1.1-1.4) compared with physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identified substantial variation in test ordering patterns for LIPs treating low-acuity patients. There were significant differences in ordering practices between providers from different training backgrounds, most significantly when comparing PEM with non-PEM providers. Further research should examine interventions to standardize practice across disciplines.

摘要

目的

医疗成本的不断上涨使得人们关注于优化患者护理效率的干预措施,包括减少不必要的诊断性检查。本研究的主要目的是确定在儿科急诊部(PED)中治疗低危患者的具有不同培训背景的执业独立提供者(LIP)之间实验室和放射学检查的变异性。

方法

我们对 2012 年 1 月至 2013 年 12 月期间在 2 家城市学术 PED 就诊的 21 岁及以下低危患者的所有就诊的电子健康记录进行了回顾性分析。我们计算了特定检查的订单频率,包括全血细胞计数、需氧血液培养、尿液培养和胸部 X 光检查。采用双变量分析测量了这些 LIP 对子组之间的检查订购关联:医生与护士从业者(NP);具有儿科急诊医学奖学金培训(PEM)的医生与没有 PEM 培训的医生以及至少有 5 年住院后经验的医生与少于 5 年的医生。我们使用多变量逻辑回归来调整 ED 位置、培训生共同管理和患者特征等潜在混杂因素。我们还按地点进行了敏感性分析。

结果

共有 148570 例就诊由 12 名 NP 和 144 名医生治疗,其中 60 名是 PEM 医生。73 名医生有 5 年或以上的经验。每位患者就诊时的检查率从 0%到个别提供者的 40%不等。在双变量分析中,当 LIP 是医生(比值比[OR] = 1.2,95%置信区间= 1.1-1.2)或具有 PEM 培训(OR = 1.3,1.2-1.3)时,检查更有可能。在多变量分析中,具有 PEM 提供者的就诊更有可能进行检查(调整后的比值比[AdjOR] = 1.2,1.1-1.3)。在仅在我们基于 PED 的紧急护理中心就诊的就诊子集的敏感性分析中,发现与非 PEM 提供者相比,接受 PEM 医生(AdjOR = 1.5,1.4-1.7)和 NP 治疗的就诊(AdjOR = 1.2,1.1-1.4)的检查更有可能。

结论

我们的研究确定了治疗低危患者的 LIP 检查订购模式存在很大差异。来自不同培训背景的提供者之间的订购做法存在显著差异,与非 PEM 提供者相比,PEM 提供者之间的差异最为显著。应进一步研究标准化跨学科实践的干预措施。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验