MacFaul R, Stewart M, Werneke U, Taylor-Meek J, Smith H E, Smith I J
Health Services Committee, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, London, UK.
Arch Dis Child. 1998 Sep;79(3):213-8. doi: 10.1136/adc.79.3.213.
To compare views of parents, consultants, and general practitioners on severity of acute illness and need for admission, and to explore views on alternative services.
Prospective questionnaire based study of 887 consecutive emergency paediatric admissions over two separate three week periods in summer and winter of five Yorkshire hospitals, combined with a further questionnaire on a subsample.
Parental scores of need for admission and parent and consultant illness severity scores out of 10. Consultant judgment of need for admission. Alternatives to admission considered by consultants and, for a subsample, by parents and family GP.
Ninety nine per cent of parents thought admission was needed. Parents scored need for admission more highly than severity of illness with no association observed between severity and presenting problem or diagnosis. High parental need score was associated with a fit, past illness, and length of stay. Consultant illness severity scores were skewed to the lower range. Consultants considered admission necessary in 71%, especially for children aged over 1 year, presentation with breathing difficulty or fit, and after a longer stay. More admissions in the evening were considered unnecessary as were admissions after longer preadmission illness, gastroenteritis, or upper respiratory tract infection. Of a subsample of parents, 81% preferred admission during the acute stage of illness even if home nursing had been available. Similar responses were obtained from GPs. Alternative services could have avoided admission for 19% of children, saving 15.6% of bed days used.
Medical professionals and parents differ in their views about admission for acute illnesses. More information is needed on children not admitted. Alternative services should take account of patterns of illness and should be acceptable to parents and professionals; cost savings may be marginal.
比较家长、顾问医生和全科医生对急性疾病严重程度及住院需求的看法,并探讨对替代服务的看法。
在约克郡五家医院的夏季和冬季分别进行为期三周的连续前瞻性问卷调查,涉及887例儿科急诊入院病例,并对一个子样本进行进一步问卷调查。
家长对住院需求的评分、家长和顾问医生对疾病严重程度的评分(满分10分)。顾问医生对住院需求的判断。顾问医生考虑的替代住院的方案,以及子样本中家长和家庭全科医生考虑的替代方案。
99%的家长认为需要住院。家长对住院需求的评分高于疾病严重程度评分,疾病严重程度与就诊问题或诊断之间未观察到关联。家长的高住院需求评分与健康状况良好、既往病史和住院时间有关。顾问医生对疾病严重程度的评分偏向较低范围。顾问医生认为71%的病例需要住院,特别是1岁以上的儿童、出现呼吸困难或惊厥的患儿以及住院时间较长的患儿。更多在晚上的住院被认为是不必要的,入院前疾病持续时间较长、患有肠胃炎或上呼吸道感染后的住院也被认为不必要。在家长子样本中,81%的家长即使有家庭护理也更倾向于在疾病急性期住院。全科医生也得到了类似的答复。替代服务可以避免19%的儿童住院,节省15.6%的住院天数。
医疗专业人员和家长对急性疾病住院的看法存在差异。需要更多关于未住院儿童的信息。替代服务应考虑疾病模式,并且应为家长和专业人员所接受;成本节约可能很有限。