Dataset Information

The Effect of Hospital Isolation Precautions on Patient Outcomes and Cost of Care: A Multi-Site, Retrospective, Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Isolation precautions have negative effects on patient safety, psychological well-being, and healthcare worker contact. However, it is not known whether isolation precautions affect certain hospital-related outcomes. OBJECTIVE:To examine the effect of isolation precautions on hospital-related outcomes and cost of care. DESIGN:Retrospective, propensity-score matched cohort study of inpatients admitted to general internal medicine (GIM) services at three academic hospitals in Toronto, Ontario, Canada between January 2010 and December 2012. PARTICIPANTS:Adult (?18 years of age) patients on isolation precautions for respiratory illnesses and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) were matched to controls based on propensity scores derived from nine covariates: age, sex, Resource Intensity Weight, number of hospital readmissions within 90 days, total length of stay for hospital admissions within 90 days, site of admission, month of isolation, year of isolation, and Case Mix Group. MAIN MEASURES:Thirty-day readmission rates and emergency department visits, hospital length of stay, expected length of stay, adverse events, in-hospital mortality, patient complaints, and cost of care in Canadian doll ars (CAD). KEY RESULTS:A total of 17,649 non-isolated patients were admitted to the participating hospitals during the study period. We identified 1506 patients isolated for respiratory illnesses and 745 patients isolated for MRSA. Compared to non-isolated individuals, those on isolation precautions for respiratory illnesses stayed 17 % longer (95 % CI: 9 %, 25 %), stayed 9 % longer than expected (95 % CI: 3 %, 15 %), and had 23 % higher cost of care (95 % CI: 14 %, 32 %). Patients isolated for MRSA had similar outcomes, but they also had a 4.4 % higher (95 % CI: 1.4 %, 7.3 %) rate of readmission to hospital within 30 days. CONCLUSIONS:Isolation precautions are associated with adverse effects which may result in poorer hospital outcomes. Balancing the benefits for the many with the harms to the few will be a future challenge.

SUBMITTER: Tran K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5330996 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Effect of Hospital Isolation Precautions on Patient Outcomes and Cost of Care: A Multi-Site, Retrospective, Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.

Tran Kim K Bell Chaim C Stall Nathan N Tomlinson George G McGeer Allison A Morris Andrew A Gardam Michael M Abrams Howard B HB

Journal of general internal medicine 20161017 3

<h4>Background</h4>Isolation precautions have negative effects on patient safety, psychological well-being, and healthcare worker contact. However, it is not known whether isolation precautions affect certain hospital-related outcomes.<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the effect of isolation precautions on hospital-related outcomes and cost of care.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective, propensity-score matched cohort study of inpatients admitted to general internal medicine (GIM) services at three academic h ...[more]

PMID: 27752880

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe primary aim of this study was to compare survival from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery (NCRS) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery (NCS) for the treatment of esophageal or junctional adenocarcinoma. The secondary aims were to compare pathological effects, short-term mortality and morbidity, and to evaluate the effect of lymph node harvest upon survival in both treatment groups.MethodsData were collected from 10 European centers from 2001 to 2012. Six hundred and eight patients with stage II or III oesophageal or oesophago-gastric junctional adenocarcinoma were included; 301 in the NCRS group and 307 in the NCS group. Propensity score matching and Cox regression analyses were used to compensate for differences in baseline characteristics.ResultsNCRS resulted in significant pathological benefits with more ypT0 (26.7% versus 5%; P < 0.001), more ypN0 (63.3% versus 32.1%; P < 0.001), and reduced R1/2 resection margins (7.7% versus 21.8%; P < 0.001). Analysis of short-term outcomes showed no statistically significant differences in 30-day or 90-day mortality, but increased incidence of anastomotic leak (23.1% versus 6.8%; P < 0.001) in NCRS patients. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in 3-year overall survival (57.9% versus 53.4%; Hazard Ratio (HR)= 0.89, 95%C.I. 0.67-1.17, P = 0.391) nor disease-free survival (52.9% versus 48.9%; HR = 0.90, 95%C.I. 0.69-1.18, P = 0.443). The pattern of recurrence was also similar (P = 0.660). There was a higher lymph node harvest in the NCS group (27 versus 14; P < 0.001), which was significantly associated with a lower recurrence rate and improved disease free survival within the NCS group.ConclusionThe survival differences between NCRS and NCS maybe modest, if present at all, for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal or junctional adenocarcinoma. Future large-scale randomized trials must control and monitor indicators of the quality of surgery, as the extent of lymphadenectomy appears to influence prognosis in patients treated with NCS, from this large multi-center European study.

Project description:PurposeIt is not clear whether vasopressin versus norepinephrine changed mortality in clinical practice in the Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial (VASST) coordinating center hospital after VASST was published. We tested the hypothesis that vasopressin changed mortality compared to norepinephrine using propensity matching of vasopressin to norepinephrine-treated patients in the VASST coordinating center hospital before (SPH1) and after (SPH2) VASST was published.MethodsVasopressin-treated patients were propensity score matched to norepinephrine-treated patients based on age, APACHE II, respiratory, renal, and hematologic dysfunction, mechanical ventilation status, medical/surgical status, infection site, and norepinephrine dose. The propensity score estimated the probability that a patient would have received vasopressin given baseline characteristics. For sensitivity analysis, we then excluded patients who had underlying severe congestive heart failure. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality.ResultsVasopressin- and norepinephrine-treated patients were similar after matching in SPH1 (pre-VASST); vasopressin-treated patients (n =?158) had a significantly higher mortality than norepinephrine-treated patients (n =?158) (60.8 vs. 46.2%, p =?0.009). In SPH2 after matching, the 28-day mortality rates were not significantly different; 31.2% and 26.9% in the vasopressin (n =?93) and norepinephrine (n =?93) groups, respectively (p =?0.518). The day 1 vasopressin dose in SPH1 vs. SPH2 was 0.036 units/min (SD 0.009) vs. 0.032 units/min (SD 0.005), p?=?0.001, significantly lower in SPH2 after VASST.ConclusionsBefore VASST, vasopressin use was associated with increased mortality compared to norepinephrine in the VASST coordinating center hospital. After VASST, there was no difference in mortality between vasopressin- and norepinephrine-treated patients. This may be the first retrospective propensity-matched cohort study of a sepsis treatment in a center that had previously coordinated a large pivotal randomized controlled trial of that treatment and could be a useful approach for other sepsis therapies.Trial registrationRegistration: ISRCTN94845869.

Dataset Information

The Effect of Hospital Isolation Precautions on Patient Outcomes and Cost of Care: A Multi-Site, Retrospective, Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.

Publications

The Effect of Hospital Isolation Precautions on Patient Outcomes and Cost of Care: A Multi-Site, Retrospective, Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets