Feasibility and cost-saving potential of outpatient cardiac catheterization
To determine the feasibility and cost-saving potential of substituting outpatient for inpatient cardiac catheterization, 986 consecutive procedures were studied at a large referral hospital. Patients were classified prospectively as to their eligibility for outpatient cardiac catheterization accordi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of the American College of Cardiology 1990-02, Vol.15 (2), p.378-384 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 384 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 378 |
container_title | Journal of the American College of Cardiology |
container_volume | 15 |
creator | Lee, Jennifer C. Bengtson, James R. Lipscomb, Joseph Bashore, Thomas M. Mark, Daniel B. Califf, Robert M. Pryor, David B. Hlatky, Mark A. |
description | To determine the feasibility and cost-saving potential of substituting outpatient for inpatient cardiac catheterization, 986 consecutive procedures were studied at a large referral hospital. Patients were classified prospectively as to their eligibility for outpatient cardiac catheterization according to published guidelines. Resource consumption was recorded, and cost savings were then calculated by analyzing the specific supply and personnel costs that could change as a result of inpatient versus outpatient status.
Of the total of 986 patients who underwent diagnostic catheterization, 240 (24%) were outpatients, 279 (28%) were inpatients but had no exclusion criteria for outpatient catheterization and 467 (47%) were inpatients who had one or more exclusions for outpatient catheterization. The most common reasons for exclusion from outpatient catheterization were congestive heart failure (22%), unstable angina (15%), noncoronary heart disease (14%), recent myocardial infarction (11%) and severe noncardiac disease (9%). Inpatients with no exclusions for the outpatient procedure tended to be sicker than outpatients because they were older (p = 0.002), had a lower ejection fraction (p = 0.009) and had more triple vessel coronary artery disease (p < 0.0001).
The cost of the catheterization procedure itself was not different between inpatients and outpatients. Laboratory testing was more frequent among inpatients, however, and “room and board” costs were significantly higher. Although the difference in hospital charges for inpatients and outpatients was $580, a rigorous analysis indicated that the potential cost savings was only 38% of this amount, or $218 per eligible patient.
It is concluded that approximately half the patients undergoing cardiac catheterization at a referral center are eligible for an outpatient study, and that shifting from an inpatient to an outpatient study would save a median of $218 in costs and $580 in charges per patient. Under currently accepted guidelines, however, inpatient procedures will continue to be needed for a substantial number of patients. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S0735-1097(10)80066-X |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79605582</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S073510971080066X</els_id><sourcerecordid>79605582</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-eee099f244078a8b923a89e99f8cad7bcc3e37ac757bc29ddae7b1aaf95f22e63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1LAzEQhoMotVZ_QmEPInpYTbLNZnMSKX6h4EEFb2E2O6uR7aYmaUF_vaktvXqaMO8zmeEhZMzoOaOsvHimshA5o0qeMnpWUVqW-dsOGTIhqrwQSu6S4RbZJwchfNIEVUwNyIBzpWhFh-ThBiHY2nY2fmfQN5lxIeYBlrZ_z-YuYh8tdJlrM7eIc4g2NTIDvrFgUo0fGNHbnxS4_pDstdAFPNrUEXm9uX6Z3uWPT7f306vH3EwkjTkiUqVaPplQWUFVK15ApTC1KgONrI0psJBgpEhvrpoGUNYMoFWi5RzLYkRO1v_OvftaYIh6ZoPBroMe3SJoqUqaJPAEijVovAvBY6vn3s7Af2tG9Uqi_pOoV4ZWrT-J-i3NjTcLFvUMm-3UxlrKjzc5BANd66E3NmwxISZcitX6yzWGScbSotfBJH8GG-vRRN04-88hv2fPkDY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>79605582</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Feasibility and cost-saving potential of outpatient cardiac catheterization</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Lee, Jennifer C. ; Bengtson, James R. ; Lipscomb, Joseph ; Bashore, Thomas M. ; Mark, Daniel B. ; Califf, Robert M. ; Pryor, David B. ; Hlatky, Mark A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Lee, Jennifer C. ; Bengtson, James R. ; Lipscomb, Joseph ; Bashore, Thomas M. ; Mark, Daniel B. ; Califf, Robert M. ; Pryor, David B. ; Hlatky, Mark A.</creatorcontrib><description>To determine the feasibility and cost-saving potential of substituting outpatient for inpatient cardiac catheterization, 986 consecutive procedures were studied at a large referral hospital. Patients were classified prospectively as to their eligibility for outpatient cardiac catheterization according to published guidelines. Resource consumption was recorded, and cost savings were then calculated by analyzing the specific supply and personnel costs that could change as a result of inpatient versus outpatient status.
Of the total of 986 patients who underwent diagnostic catheterization, 240 (24%) were outpatients, 279 (28%) were inpatients but had no exclusion criteria for outpatient catheterization and 467 (47%) were inpatients who had one or more exclusions for outpatient catheterization. The most common reasons for exclusion from outpatient catheterization were congestive heart failure (22%), unstable angina (15%), noncoronary heart disease (14%), recent myocardial infarction (11%) and severe noncardiac disease (9%). Inpatients with no exclusions for the outpatient procedure tended to be sicker than outpatients because they were older (p = 0.002), had a lower ejection fraction (p = 0.009) and had more triple vessel coronary artery disease (p < 0.0001).
The cost of the catheterization procedure itself was not different between inpatients and outpatients. Laboratory testing was more frequent among inpatients, however, and “room and board” costs were significantly higher. Although the difference in hospital charges for inpatients and outpatients was $580, a rigorous analysis indicated that the potential cost savings was only 38% of this amount, or $218 per eligible patient.
It is concluded that approximately half the patients undergoing cardiac catheterization at a referral center are eligible for an outpatient study, and that shifting from an inpatient to an outpatient study would save a median of $218 in costs and $580 in charges per patient. Under currently accepted guidelines, however, inpatient procedures will continue to be needed for a substantial number of patients.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0735-1097</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1558-3597</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(10)80066-X</identifier><identifier>PMID: 2299080</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JACCDI</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Ambulatory Care - economics ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cardiac Catheterization - economics ; Cardiac Catheterization - methods ; Cardiology. Vascular system ; Consumer Behavior ; Costs and Cost Analysis ; Feasibility Studies ; Heart ; Humans ; Medical sciences</subject><ispartof>Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 1990-02, Vol.15 (2), p.378-384</ispartof><rights>1990 American College of Cardiology Foundation</rights><rights>1992 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-eee099f244078a8b923a89e99f8cad7bcc3e37ac757bc29ddae7b1aaf95f22e63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-eee099f244078a8b923a89e99f8cad7bcc3e37ac757bc29ddae7b1aaf95f22e63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(10)80066-X$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=5542752$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2299080$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lee, Jennifer C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bengtson, James R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lipscomb, Joseph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bashore, Thomas M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mark, Daniel B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Califf, Robert M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pryor, David B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hlatky, Mark A.</creatorcontrib><title>Feasibility and cost-saving potential of outpatient cardiac catheterization</title><title>Journal of the American College of Cardiology</title><addtitle>J Am Coll Cardiol</addtitle><description>To determine the feasibility and cost-saving potential of substituting outpatient for inpatient cardiac catheterization, 986 consecutive procedures were studied at a large referral hospital. Patients were classified prospectively as to their eligibility for outpatient cardiac catheterization according to published guidelines. Resource consumption was recorded, and cost savings were then calculated by analyzing the specific supply and personnel costs that could change as a result of inpatient versus outpatient status.
Of the total of 986 patients who underwent diagnostic catheterization, 240 (24%) were outpatients, 279 (28%) were inpatients but had no exclusion criteria for outpatient catheterization and 467 (47%) were inpatients who had one or more exclusions for outpatient catheterization. The most common reasons for exclusion from outpatient catheterization were congestive heart failure (22%), unstable angina (15%), noncoronary heart disease (14%), recent myocardial infarction (11%) and severe noncardiac disease (9%). Inpatients with no exclusions for the outpatient procedure tended to be sicker than outpatients because they were older (p = 0.002), had a lower ejection fraction (p = 0.009) and had more triple vessel coronary artery disease (p < 0.0001).
The cost of the catheterization procedure itself was not different between inpatients and outpatients. Laboratory testing was more frequent among inpatients, however, and “room and board” costs were significantly higher. Although the difference in hospital charges for inpatients and outpatients was $580, a rigorous analysis indicated that the potential cost savings was only 38% of this amount, or $218 per eligible patient.
It is concluded that approximately half the patients undergoing cardiac catheterization at a referral center are eligible for an outpatient study, and that shifting from an inpatient to an outpatient study would save a median of $218 in costs and $580 in charges per patient. Under currently accepted guidelines, however, inpatient procedures will continue to be needed for a substantial number of patients.</description><subject>Ambulatory Care - economics</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cardiac Catheterization - economics</subject><subject>Cardiac Catheterization - methods</subject><subject>Cardiology. Vascular system</subject><subject>Consumer Behavior</subject><subject>Costs and Cost Analysis</subject><subject>Feasibility Studies</subject><subject>Heart</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><issn>0735-1097</issn><issn>1558-3597</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1990</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkE1LAzEQhoMotVZ_QmEPInpYTbLNZnMSKX6h4EEFb2E2O6uR7aYmaUF_vaktvXqaMO8zmeEhZMzoOaOsvHimshA5o0qeMnpWUVqW-dsOGTIhqrwQSu6S4RbZJwchfNIEVUwNyIBzpWhFh-ThBiHY2nY2fmfQN5lxIeYBlrZ_z-YuYh8tdJlrM7eIc4g2NTIDvrFgUo0fGNHbnxS4_pDstdAFPNrUEXm9uX6Z3uWPT7f306vH3EwkjTkiUqVaPplQWUFVK15ApTC1KgONrI0psJBgpEhvrpoGUNYMoFWi5RzLYkRO1v_OvftaYIh6ZoPBroMe3SJoqUqaJPAEijVovAvBY6vn3s7Af2tG9Uqi_pOoV4ZWrT-J-i3NjTcLFvUMm-3UxlrKjzc5BANd66E3NmwxISZcitX6yzWGScbSotfBJH8GG-vRRN04-88hv2fPkDY</recordid><startdate>19900201</startdate><enddate>19900201</enddate><creator>Lee, Jennifer C.</creator><creator>Bengtson, James R.</creator><creator>Lipscomb, Joseph</creator><creator>Bashore, Thomas M.</creator><creator>Mark, Daniel B.</creator><creator>Califf, Robert M.</creator><creator>Pryor, David B.</creator><creator>Hlatky, Mark A.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Science</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19900201</creationdate><title>Feasibility and cost-saving potential of outpatient cardiac catheterization</title><author>Lee, Jennifer C. ; Bengtson, James R. ; Lipscomb, Joseph ; Bashore, Thomas M. ; Mark, Daniel B. ; Califf, Robert M. ; Pryor, David B. ; Hlatky, Mark A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-eee099f244078a8b923a89e99f8cad7bcc3e37ac757bc29ddae7b1aaf95f22e63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1990</creationdate><topic>Ambulatory Care - economics</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cardiac Catheterization - economics</topic><topic>Cardiac Catheterization - methods</topic><topic>Cardiology. Vascular system</topic><topic>Consumer Behavior</topic><topic>Costs and Cost Analysis</topic><topic>Feasibility Studies</topic><topic>Heart</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lee, Jennifer C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bengtson, James R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lipscomb, Joseph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bashore, Thomas M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mark, Daniel B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Califf, Robert M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pryor, David B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hlatky, Mark A.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of the American College of Cardiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lee, Jennifer C.</au><au>Bengtson, James R.</au><au>Lipscomb, Joseph</au><au>Bashore, Thomas M.</au><au>Mark, Daniel B.</au><au>Califf, Robert M.</au><au>Pryor, David B.</au><au>Hlatky, Mark A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Feasibility and cost-saving potential of outpatient cardiac catheterization</atitle><jtitle>Journal of the American College of Cardiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Am Coll Cardiol</addtitle><date>1990-02-01</date><risdate>1990</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>378</spage><epage>384</epage><pages>378-384</pages><issn>0735-1097</issn><eissn>1558-3597</eissn><coden>JACCDI</coden><abstract>To determine the feasibility and cost-saving potential of substituting outpatient for inpatient cardiac catheterization, 986 consecutive procedures were studied at a large referral hospital. Patients were classified prospectively as to their eligibility for outpatient cardiac catheterization according to published guidelines. Resource consumption was recorded, and cost savings were then calculated by analyzing the specific supply and personnel costs that could change as a result of inpatient versus outpatient status.
Of the total of 986 patients who underwent diagnostic catheterization, 240 (24%) were outpatients, 279 (28%) were inpatients but had no exclusion criteria for outpatient catheterization and 467 (47%) were inpatients who had one or more exclusions for outpatient catheterization. The most common reasons for exclusion from outpatient catheterization were congestive heart failure (22%), unstable angina (15%), noncoronary heart disease (14%), recent myocardial infarction (11%) and severe noncardiac disease (9%). Inpatients with no exclusions for the outpatient procedure tended to be sicker than outpatients because they were older (p = 0.002), had a lower ejection fraction (p = 0.009) and had more triple vessel coronary artery disease (p < 0.0001).
The cost of the catheterization procedure itself was not different between inpatients and outpatients. Laboratory testing was more frequent among inpatients, however, and “room and board” costs were significantly higher. Although the difference in hospital charges for inpatients and outpatients was $580, a rigorous analysis indicated that the potential cost savings was only 38% of this amount, or $218 per eligible patient.
It is concluded that approximately half the patients undergoing cardiac catheterization at a referral center are eligible for an outpatient study, and that shifting from an inpatient to an outpatient study would save a median of $218 in costs and $580 in charges per patient. Under currently accepted guidelines, however, inpatient procedures will continue to be needed for a substantial number of patients.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>2299080</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0735-1097(10)80066-X</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0735-1097 |
ispartof | Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 1990-02, Vol.15 (2), p.378-384 |
issn | 0735-1097 1558-3597 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79605582 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Ambulatory Care - economics Biological and medical sciences Cardiac Catheterization - economics Cardiac Catheterization - methods Cardiology. Vascular system Consumer Behavior Costs and Cost Analysis Feasibility Studies Heart Humans Medical sciences |
title | Feasibility and cost-saving potential of outpatient cardiac catheterization |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T10%3A03%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Feasibility%20and%20cost-saving%20potential%20of%20outpatient%20cardiac%20catheterization&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20the%20American%20College%20of%20Cardiology&rft.au=Lee,%20Jennifer%20C.&rft.date=1990-02-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=378&rft.epage=384&rft.pages=378-384&rft.issn=0735-1097&rft.eissn=1558-3597&rft.coden=JACCDI&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0735-1097(10)80066-X&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E79605582%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=79605582&rft_id=info:pmid/2299080&rft_els_id=S073510971080066X&rfr_iscdi=true |