Cargando…

Effect of Active Surgical Co-Management by Medical Hospitalists in Urology Inpatient Care: A Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the use of active surgical co-management (SCM) by medical hospitalists for urology inpatient care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Since March 2019, a hospitalist-SCM program was implemented at a tertiary-care medical center, and a retrospective cohort study was conducte...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Eun Sun, Ohn, Jung Hun, Lim, Yejee, Lee, Jongchan, Kim, Hye Won, Kim, Sun-wook, Ryu, Jiwon, Park, Hee-Sun, Cho, Jae Ho, Oh, Jong Jin, Byun, Seok-Soo, Jang, Hak Chul, Kim, Nak-Hyun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Yonsei University College of Medicine 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10462814/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37634632
http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2023.0143
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the use of active surgical co-management (SCM) by medical hospitalists for urology inpatient care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Since March 2019, a hospitalist-SCM program was implemented at a tertiary-care medical center, and a retrospective cohort study was conducted among co-managed urology inpatients. We assessed the clinical outcomes of urology inpatients who received SCM and compared passive SCM (co-management of patients by hospitalists only on request; March 2019 to June 2020) with active SCM (co-management of patients based on active screening by hospitalists; July 2020 to October 2021). We also evaluated the perceptions of patients who received SCM toward inpatient care quality, safety, and subjective satisfaction with inpatient care at discharge or when transferred to other wards. RESULTS: We assessed 525 patients. Compared with the passive SCM group (n=205), patients in the active SCM group (n=320) required co-management for a significantly shorter duration (p=0.012) and tended to have a shorter length of stay at the urology ward (p=0.062) and less frequent unplanned readmissions within 30 days of discharge (p=0.095) while triggering significantly fewer events of rapid response team activation (p=0.002). No differences were found in the proportion of patients transferred to the intensive care unit, in-hospital mortality rates, or inpatient care questionnaire scores. CONCLUSION: Active surveillance and co-management of urology inpatients by medical hospitalists can improve the quality and efficacy of inpatient care without compromising subjective inpatient satisfaction.