Trends Following Implementation of an Otolaryngology Hospitalist Model in a Tertiary Care Setting.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES
The otolaryngology hospitalist (OH) model is an emerging paradigm for inpatient and acute patient care. This study presents encounter volume before and after the implementation of an OH service. Postimplementation trends are evaluated.
STUDY
DESIGN
Retrospective administrative and clinical database review.
SETTING
Tertiary care university hospital.
METHODS
This review includes 2 distinct time frames (2008-2012, 2014-2018), representing periods before and after OH implementation. The number of billed patient encounters is compared between these 2 periods using the hospital data warehouse. Additional data is evaluated for the postimplementation period, using a clinical database. Encounter type, the reason for consultation, procedures, and requesting service/location are described.
RESULTS
After the OH implementation, there was a 451% increase in evaluation and management encounters submitted for billing. Since the OH model inception, there was an overall increase in encounters (849-910), procedures performed (319-345), and operative cases (46-54) per year. Each inpatient consultation request generates one or more procedures on average. Common reasons for consultation include sinonasal pathology (20.3%), dysphonia/dysphagia (17.5%), and airway evaluation (15%). Critical Care (24%), Emergency Medicine (21%), and Hospital Medicine (21%) requested most of the Otolaryngology consults. Most consults were seen on the inpatient medical/surgical floor (46%), with the ICU (27%) and the Emergency Department (22%) being the next most common locations.
CONCLUSIONS
The OH model is an evolving paradigm that is viable and offers timely, specialized care for patients in a hospital or acute care setting.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.