Suppr超能文献

自我报告与电子病历记录的老年社区居民医疗利用情况比较:两项前瞻性队列研究。

Self-report versus electronic medical record recorded healthcare utilisation in older community-dwelling adults: Comparison of two prospective cohort studies.

机构信息

HRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.

The Irish Longitudinal Study of Ageing, Lincoln Gate, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2018 Oct 26;13(10):e0206201. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206201. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Self-reported measures of healthcare utilisation are often used in longitudinal cohort studies involving older community-dwelling people. The aim of this study is to compare healthcare utilisation rates using patient self-report and manual extraction from the general practice (GP) electronic medical record (EMR).

METHODS

Study population: Two prospective cohort studies (n = 806 and n = 1,377, aged ≥70 years) conducted in the Republic of Ireland were compared. Study outcomes: GP, outpatient department (OPD) and emergency department (ED) visits over a one-year period. Statistical analysis: Descriptive statistics of the two cohorts are presented. A negative binomial regression was performed and results are presented as incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For the outcome of any ED visit, linear regression was performed, yielding risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI.

RESULTS

The annual rates of GP, OPD and ED visits were 6.30 (SD 4.63), 2.11 (SD 2.46) and 0.26 (SD 0.62) respectively in GP EMR cohort, compared to 5.65 (SD 8.06), 2.09 (SD 5.83) and 0.32 (SD 0.84) in the self-report cohort. In univariate regression analysis comparing healthcare utilisation, the self-report cohort reported a lower frequency of GP visits (unadjusted IRR 0.90 (95% CI 0.84, 0.96), p = 0.02)), a greater frequency of ED visits (1.20 (0.98, 1.49), p = 0.083)), and no difference in OPD visits (unadjusted IRR 0.99 (95% CI 0.86, 1.13), p = 0.845)). In multivariate analysis, adjusted for relevant confounders, there was no difference in GP visits (adjusted IRR 0.99 (95% CI 0.92, 1.06), p = 0.684)) or OPD visits (adjusted IRR 1.09 (0.95, 1.25), p = 0.23)) between the two cohorts. However, the self-report cohort reported 37% more ED visits (adjusted IRR 1.37 (1.10, 1.71), p = 0.005)) and were more likely to report any ED visit (adjusted RR 1.23 (95% CI 1.02, 1.48), p = 0.028)).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that reported rates of GP and OPD visits were similar but there were differences in reported ED visits, with significantly higher self-reported visits. This may be due to ED visits not being notified to the GP and contextual issues such as transfer of healthcare utilisation data between sectors may vary in different healthcare systems.

摘要

简介

自我报告的医疗保健利用情况通常用于涉及年龄在 70 岁及以上的社区居住的老年人的纵向队列研究。本研究的目的是比较使用患者自我报告和从全科医生(GP)电子病历(EMR)手动提取的医疗保健利用情况的比率。

方法

研究人群:比较了在爱尔兰共和国进行的两项前瞻性队列研究(n=806 和 n=1377,年龄≥70 岁)。研究结果:在一年期间,GP、门诊部(OPD)和急诊部(ED)就诊。统计分析:呈现两个队列的描述性统计数据。进行了负二项回归,结果表示为发病率比(IRR)和 95%置信区间(CI)。对于任何 ED 就诊的结果,进行了线性回归,产生 95%CI 的风险比(RR)。

结果

在 GP EMR 队列中,每年 GP、OPD 和 ED 就诊的比率分别为 6.30(SD 4.63)、2.11(SD 2.46)和 0.26(SD 0.62),而在自我报告的队列中,比率分别为 5.65(SD 8.06)、2.09(SD 5.83)和 0.32(SD 0.84)。在比较医疗保健利用情况的单变量回归分析中,自我报告的队列报告 GP 就诊的频率较低(未经调整的 IRR 0.90(95%CI 0.84,0.96),p=0.02)),ED 就诊的频率更高(1.20(0.98,1.49),p=0.083)),而 OPD 就诊的频率没有差异(未经调整的 IRR 0.99(95%CI 0.86,1.13),p=0.845))。在多变量分析中,调整了相关混杂因素后,两组之间 GP 就诊(调整后的 IRR 0.99(95%CI 0.92,1.06),p=0.684))或 OPD 就诊(调整后的 IRR 1.09(95%CI 0.95,1.25),p=0.23))没有差异。然而,自我报告的队列报告的 ED 就诊增加了 37%(调整后的 IRR 1.37(1.10,1.71),p=0.005)),并且更有可能报告任何 ED 就诊(调整后的 RR 1.23(95%CI 1.02,1.48),p=0.028))。

结论

本研究表明,报告的 GP 和 OPD 就诊率相似,但报告的 ED 就诊率存在差异,自我报告的就诊率显著更高。这可能是由于 ED 就诊未通知 GP 以及医疗保健利用数据在不同部门之间转移等背景问题在不同的医疗保健系统中可能存在差异。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/19c1/6203362/f63bac8f2c35/pone.0206201.g001.jpg

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