hospital outpatient
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

478
(FIVE YEARS 121)

H-INDEX

26
(FIVE YEARS 6)

2022 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-25
Author(s):  
A. B. Binegdie ◽  
H. Meme ◽  
A. El Sony ◽  
T. Haile ◽  
R. Osman ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND: The greatest burden of chronic respiratory disease is in low- and middle-income countries, with recent population-based studies reporting substantial levels of obstructive and restrictive lung function.OBJECTIVE: To characterise the common chronic respiratory diseases encountered in hospital outpatient clinics in three African countries.METHODS This was a cross-sectional study of consecutive adult patients with chronic respiratory symptoms (>8 weeks) attending hospital outpatient departments in Ethiopia, Kenya and Sudan. Patients were assessed using a respiratory questionnaire, spirometry and chest radiography. The diagnoses of the reviewing clinicians were ascertained.RESULT: A total of 519 patients (209 Kenya, 170 Ethiopia, 140 Sudan) participated; the mean age was 45.2 years (SD 16.2); 53% were women, 83% had never smoked. Reviewing clinicians considered that 36% (95% CI 32–40) of patients had asthma, 25% (95% CI 21–29) had chronic bronchitis, 8% (95% CI 6–11) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 5% (95% CI 4–8) bronchiectasis and 4% (95% CI 3–6) post-TB lung disease. Spirometry consistent with COPD was present in 35% (95% CI 30–39). Restriction was evident in 38% (95% CI 33–43). There was evidence of sub-optimal diagnosis of asthma and COPD.CONCLUSION: In Ethiopia, Kenya and Sudan, asthma, COPD and chronic bronchitis account for the majority of diagnoses in non-TB patients with chronic respiratory symptoms. The suboptimal diagnosis of these conditions will require the widespread use of spirometry.


2022 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 345-359
Author(s):  
Cassie E. McDonald ◽  
Catherine L. Granger ◽  
Catherine M. Said ◽  
Louisa J. Remedios

In this research, we explore and theorize on the potential of hospital outpatient rehabilitation waiting areas to respond and contribute to the health literacy needs of consumers. Constructivist grounded theory informed the sampling and analytical procedures. Thirty-three consumers attending outpatient rehabilitation for a range of health conditions were recruited to this multi-site study. Semi-structured interview and participant observation data were collected and analyzed concurrently using the constant comparison method. The substantive theory of “seeking choice to fulfill health literacy needs” and five interdependent categories were developed. Results indicated that consumers sought choice reflective of their needs; however, the waiting area offered limited choice. Consumers shared ideas to address the lack of choice. Results provide insight into the health literacy needs of consumers in hospital outpatient waiting areas and how health services can appropriately respond to these needs. Future research should investigate the effect of health service environments on health outcomes.


2021 ◽  
pp. 000348942110581
Author(s):  
Nicole C. Starr ◽  
Liza Creel ◽  
Christopher Harryman ◽  
Nikita Gupta

Background: Human cadaveric allograft (HCA) and costal cartilage autograft (CCA) have been described for reconstruction during rhinoplasty. Neither are ideal due to infection, resorption, and donor site morbidity. The clear superiority of 1 graft over the other has not yet been demonstrated. This study assesses comparative costs associated with current grafting materials to better explore the cost ceiling for a theoretical tissue engineered implant. Materials and methods: A cost utility analysis was performed. Initial procedure costs include physician fees (CPT 30420), hospital outpatient prospective payments, ambulatory surgical center payments, and fees for the following: rib graft (CPT 20910), hospital observation, and DRG (155) for inpatient admission. Additional costs for revision procedure, included the following fees: physician (CPT 30345), rib graft, hospital outpatient prospective payment, and ambulatory surgical center payments. Total costs under each scenario were calculated with and without the revision procedure. Comparison of total costs for each potential outcome to the estimated health utility value allowed for comparison across rhinoplasty subgroups. Results: The mean cost of primary outpatient rhinoplasty using HCA and CCA were $8075 and $8342 respectively. Revision outpatient rhinoplasty averaged $7447 and increased to $8228 if costal cartilage harvest was required. Hospital admission increased the cost of primary rhinoplasty with CCA to $8609 for observational admission and to $13653 for 1 day inpatient admission. Revision CCA rhinoplasty with an inpatient admission complicated by pneumothorax increased costs to $21 099. Conclusion: Cost of rhinoplasty without hospitalization was similar between HCA and CCA and this cost represents the lower limit of a practical cost for an engineered graft. Considering complications such as need for revision or for admission after CCA due to surgical morbidity, the upper limit of cost for an engineered implant would approximately double.


2021 ◽  
pp. 107815522110488
Author(s):  
Carolyn Kusoski ◽  
Jennifer Booth ◽  
Stephanie Salch ◽  
Harrison Jozefczyk ◽  
Julie Kennerly-Shah

Purpose As costs continue to rise in oncology, a strategy that has been implemented to limit these costs is use of alternative sites of care. However, there are differences in regulatory standards between common sites of care such as freestanding infusion clinics and hospital outpatient departments. The costs associated with United States Pharmacopeia compliance were evaluated in order to better understand the cost of universally compliant hospital outpatient departments. Methods Annual operational costs associated with United States Pharmacopeia compliance were estimated for a 30-chair infusion clinic with United States Pharmacopeia <797> and <800> pharmacy cleanrooms for non-hazardous and hazardous drugs, respectively. Annual United States Pharmacopeia compliance costs included: competency assessments, personal protective equipment, closed system transfer devices, labels, cleaning supplies, and environmental monitoring. One-time costs included initial cleanroom construction and renovations. Published information and benchmarks provided baseline assumptions for patient volume, staffing, and unit costs. If no published data was available, prices were estimated based on a similarly sized clinic. Results Recurring annual costs for a 30-chair fully compliant infusion clinic were calculated to be $785,207. One-time costs associated with initial construction and renovations were estimated to be $1,365,207–$1,535,207 and $965,207–$1,005,207, respectively. Conclusions Costs associated with increased operational oversight and regulatory standards are a major contributing factor to the facility fee of hospital outpatient departments. Ultimately, all sites of care share in the goal to provide optimal patient care while considering all aspects of patient care, including cost. Therefore, a move towards consistent regulatory standards across all settings would aid in preventing discrepancies in care.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e049009
Author(s):  
Deborah Marshall ◽  
Melissa D Aldridge ◽  
Kavita Dharmarajan

ObjectivesThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ newly enacted Radiation Oncology Model (‘RO Model’) was designed to test the cost-saving potential of prospective episode-based payments for radiation treatment for 17 cancer diagnoses by encouraging high-value care and more efficient care delivery. For bone metastases, evidence supports the use of higher-value, shorter courses of radiation (≤10 fractions). Our goal was to determine the prevalence of short radiation courses (≤10 fractions) for bone metastases and the setting, treatment and patient characteristics associated with such courses and their expenditures.DesignUsing the RO Model episode file, we evaluated receipt of ≤10 fractions of radiotherapy for bone metastases and expenditures by treatment setting for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries during calendar years 2015–2017.Using unadjusted and adjusted regression models, we determined predictors of receipt of ≤10 fractions and expenditures. Multivariable models adjusted for treatment and patient characteristics.ResultsThere were 48 810 episodes for bone metastases during the period. A majority of episodes for ≤10 fractions occurred in hospital-outpatient settings (62.8% (N=22 715)). After adjusting for treatment and patient factors, hospital-outpatient treatment setting remained a significant predictor of receiving ≤10 fractions (adjusted OR 2.03 (95% CI 1.95, 2.12; p<0.001) vs free-standing). The greatest adjusted contributors to total expenditures were number of fractions (US$−3424 (95% CI US$−3412 to US$−3435) for ≤10 fractions vs >10; p<0.001) and treatment type (including US$7716 (95% CI US$7424 to US$8018) for intensity modulated radiation therapy vs conventional external beam; p<0.001).ConclusionsA measurable performance gap exists for delivery of higher-value bone metastases radiotherapy under an episode-based model, associated with increased expenditures. The RO Model may succeed in improving the value of bone metastases radiation. Increasing the capacity of free-standing centres to implement palliative-focused services may improve the ability of these practices to succeed under the RO Model.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 25-25
Author(s):  
Natalie R. Dickson ◽  
Allison Hirschorn ◽  
Brian Bourbeau ◽  
Christian A. Thomas ◽  
Stephanie Thebarge ◽  
...  

25 Background: In 2016, Medicare added coverage for advance care planning (ACP) services (CPT codes 99497 and 99498). ASCO’s Coverage and Reimbursement Steering Group sought to explore and quantify whether these codes are regularly utilized by hematology and oncology physicians, and to provide guidance on administrative best practices for successful reimbursement. Methods: We analyzed utilization of care management services using Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (2016-2019) and Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and other Supplier PUF CY2018 (PUF) files, available on data.cms.gov. Data files are limited to lines representing services to at least 11 unique Medicare beneficiaries; otherwise, Medicare imputes a blank value. Total ACP services submitted to Medicare and the total services denied were calculated for each year using the combination of Hematology, Hematology/Oncology, and Medical Oncology (collectively Hematology/Oncology) specialties, as well as for all specialties. Within Hematology/Oncology, we also pulled physician-level data for 6,335 physicians who had billed Medicare for at least 500 office or hospital outpatient evaluation and management services in 2018. Totals for codes 99497 and 99498 were calculated per physician, providing a distribution of volume. Results: Specialty utilization of ACP services has increased each year, from 708,183 submitted services in 2016 to 2,043,767 in 2019. Hematology/Oncology utilization increased from 2016 to 2017, followed by declines in volume for 2018 and 2019. Among 6,355 hematology/oncology physicians submitting at least 500 office or hospital outpatient evaluation and management visits, 145 billed Medicare at least 11 ACP services in either a facility or non-facility setting. Advance Care Planning Services (99497 and 99498) billed to Medicare in 2016-2019. Conclusions: Though Advance Care Planning is an integral part of cancer care, the codes are not frequently reported to Medicare as a separate service. This may be due to lack of awareness or understanding of the codes, and uncertainty as to how to implement the services into the workflow of the practice. To increase utilization and ensure appropriate reporting of ACP, Oncologists and Oncology practices would benefit from coding and reporting education, and well as guidance on administrative processes to successfully manage ACP services. ASCO's Coverage and Reimbursement Steering Group has developed a practice administration and reimbursement guide for publication on asco.org.[Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document