Search

Copyright of Notfall & Rettungsmedizin is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: To assess the impact of a low-cost education and feedback intervention designed to change physicians' utilization behavior on general medicine services.Design: Prospective, nonequivalent control group study of 1,432 admissions on four general medicine services over 12 months. Two services were randomly selected to receive the intervention. The other two served as controls. Admissions alternated between control and intervention services each day. Results were casemix-adjusted using diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). Three internists blinded to patient study group assignment assessed quality of care using a structured implicit instrument.Setting: Four general medicine services at a university hospital.Interventions: A brief orientation, a pamphlet of cost strategies and common charges, detailed interim bills, and information about projected length of stay and usual hospital reimbursement for each patient.Patients/participants: Each service was staffed by a full-time internal medicine faculty member, one third-year and two first-year internal medicine houseofficers, three medical students, and a clinical pharmacist. Physicians were assigned to services for one-month periods by a physician unaware of the study design. To prevent crossover, houseofficers assigned to a service returned to the same service for all subsequent general medical inpatient assignments.Measurements and Main Results: Geometric mean length of stay was 0.44 days (7.8%) shorter for the intervention services than for the control services (p less than 0.01), and geometric mean charges were $341 (7.1%) less (p less than 0.01). Effects persisted despite using a more precise cost estimate or casemix adjustment. Intervention houseofficers demonstrated superior cost-related attitudes but no difference in knowledge of charges. Audits of quality of care detected no significant difference between groups.Conclusion: This low-intensity intervention reduced length of stay and charges, even under the cost-constrained context of the prospective payment system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An educational intervention designed to change physicians' use of inpatient services was implemented on two general medical services for a year. The intervention consisted of a brief orientation to cost containment issues, a pamphlet that outlined practical cost containment strategies and listed the charges for commonly ordered tests and services, and access to detailed interim patients' bills generated during the hospitalization. Two concurrent control services received no intervention. Over 1,600 admissions were evaluated. The geometric mean length of stay was 0.61 days shorter on intervention services compared with control (5.15 vs. 5.76 days, p less than 0.01). The geometric mean hospital charges were $388 less for intervention patients ($3,199 vs. $3,587, p less than 0.005). Neither patients' demographic characteristics nor case mix could explain the reductions. The authors conclude that a simple program utilizing information already in existence in most hospitals can result in a significant and meaningful reduction in length of stay and charges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]