• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

管理式医疗如何为腹腔镜胆囊切除术合同选择医院。

How managed care may choose hospitals for contracts for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

作者信息

Weiland D E, Caruso D M, Wesche D E, Bay R C

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Maricopa Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ 85010, USA.

出版信息

JSLS. 1997 Jul-Sep;1(3):285-8.

PMID:9876690
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3016738/
Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Maricopa Medical Center (MMC) was found to have higher charges and length-of-stays than 16 other regional hospitals in an analysis of DRG categories for gallbladder disease. These comparative figures identified MMC as being inefficient and demanded review to determine the reasons for the inefficiencies.

METHODS

In an attempt to determine the reason for inefficiency of charges and length-of-stay for the laparoscopic portion of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, matched pairs of open cholecystectomy and converted laparoscopic cholecystectomy from a data base of 633 patients with cholecystectomies were reviewed. Thirty-five matches for age, sex and similar diagnosis were successful.

RESULTS

Matched pair evaluation disclosed a $6,880 difference in charges, which was attributed solely to the charge for laparoscopy. Subsequent chart analysis showed a high charge for instrumentation, prolonged anesthesia and operative times and longer preoperative delays before surgery. Moreover, no matter what the conversion rate is, open cholecystectomy was more cost effective. However, if there is a conversion rate of 5%, total hospital charges for laparoscopic cholecystectomy would have to be reduced to $12,679 (a reduction of $3,332 from $16,011) to make laparoscopic cholecystectomy cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effective decision tree analysis of matched pair comparisons and sensitivity analysis proves to be an effective technique in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a hospital population.

摘要

背景与目的

在一项针对胆囊疾病诊断相关分组(DRG)类别的分析中,发现马里科帕医疗中心(MMC)的收费和住院时间比其他16家地区医院更高。这些对比数据表明MMC效率低下,需要进行审查以确定效率低下的原因。

方法

为了确定腹腔镜胆囊切除术腹腔镜部分收费和住院时间效率低下的原因,我们从633例胆囊切除术患者的数据库中,对开放式胆囊切除术和中转腹腔镜胆囊切除术进行了配对审查。成功匹配了35对年龄、性别和诊断相似的病例。

结果

配对评估显示收费相差6880美元,这完全归因于腹腔镜检查的费用。随后的病历分析显示,器械收费、麻醉时间延长、手术时间延长以及术前延迟时间更长。此外,无论中转率如何,开放式胆囊切除术的成本效益更高。然而,如果中转率为5%,腹腔镜胆囊切除术的总住院费用必须降至12679美元(从16011美元降至3332美元),才能使腹腔镜胆囊切除术具有成本效益。

结论

配对比较的成本效益决策树分析和敏感性分析被证明是评估医院人群中腹腔镜胆囊切除术成本效益的有效技术。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f48c/3016738/5fd399a61f08/jsls-1-3-285-g03.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f48c/3016738/b66e797ead2e/jsls-1-3-285-g01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f48c/3016738/c84b6c13f349/jsls-1-3-285-g02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f48c/3016738/5fd399a61f08/jsls-1-3-285-g03.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f48c/3016738/b66e797ead2e/jsls-1-3-285-g01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f48c/3016738/c84b6c13f349/jsls-1-3-285-g02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f48c/3016738/5fd399a61f08/jsls-1-3-285-g03.jpg

相似文献

1
How managed care may choose hospitals for contracts for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.管理式医疗如何为腹腔镜胆囊切除术合同选择医院。
JSLS. 1997 Jul-Sep;1(3):285-8.
2
Using delta/DRG diagrams and decision tree analysis to select a cost-effective surgery for cholecystitis.使用增量/诊断相关分组(DRG)图表和决策树分析为胆囊炎选择具有成本效益的手术。
JSLS. 1997 Apr-Jun;1(2):175-80.
3
Is academic managed care an oxymoron?学术性管理式医疗是一种矛盾修饰法吗?
Am J Surg. 1995 Dec;170(6):651-4; discussion 654-5. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9610(99)80035-x.
4
The costs and effects of open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomies.
Health Econ. 1993 Dec;2(4):303-12. doi: 10.1002/hec.4730020403.
5
[Cost-effect evaluation of different variants of cholecystectomies].[不同术式胆囊切除术的成本效益评估]
Khirurgiia (Mosk). 2005(6):24-30.
6
[A cost analysis of laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with the open technic].腹腔镜胆囊切除术与开放技术的成本分析
Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 1995 Jun;87(6):449-52.
7
Cost effectiveness of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
J Laparoendosc Surg. 1992 Aug;2(4):145-50. doi: 10.1089/lps.1992.2.145.
8
A retrospective comparison of robotic cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: operative outcomes and cost analysis.机器人胆囊切除术与腹腔镜胆囊切除术的回顾性比较:手术结果与成本分析
Surg Endosc. 2017 Mar;31(3):1436-1441. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5134-0. Epub 2016 Aug 5.
9
Laparoscopic or open conventional cholecystectomy: clinical and economic considerations.腹腔镜或开放式传统胆囊切除术:临床与经济考量
Eur J Surg. 2002;168(5):270-7. doi: 10.1002/ejs.45.
10
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy after a quarter century: why do we still convert?腹腔镜胆囊切除术开展 25 年后:我们为何仍需中转开腹?
Surg Endosc. 2012 Feb;26(2):508-13. doi: 10.1007/s00464-011-1909-5. Epub 2011 Sep 23.

引用本文的文献

1
Contributing factors to postoperative length of stay in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.腹腔镜胆囊切除术后住院时间的影响因素。
JSLS. 2011 Apr-Jun;15(2):174-8. doi: 10.4293/108680811X13022985132254.
2
Operating room costs of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: does surgeon volume matter?腹腔镜胆囊切除术的手术室成本:外科医生的手术量重要吗?
Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2006 Mar;22(3):126-34. doi: 10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70232-3.

本文引用的文献

1
National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement on Gallstones and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.美国国立卫生研究院关于胆结石与腹腔镜胆囊切除术的共识发展会议声明
Am J Surg. 1993 Apr;165(4):390-8. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9610(05)80929-8.
2
Surgical rates and operative mortality for open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Maryland.马里兰州开腹和腹腔镜胆囊切除术的手术率及手术死亡率。
N Engl J Med. 1994 Feb 10;330(6):403-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199402103300607.
3
The cost of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy in a community hospital.
社区医院中腹腔镜胆囊切除术与开腹胆囊切除术的费用
Surg Endosc. 1995 Mar;9(3):314-23; discussion 324. doi: 10.1007/BF00187776.
4
Is academic managed care an oxymoron?学术性管理式医疗是一种矛盾修饰法吗?
Am J Surg. 1995 Dec;170(6):651-4; discussion 654-5. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9610(99)80035-x.