PD09-07 RETURNING THE ER: AN ANALYSIS OF EMERGENCY VISITS FOLLOWING UROLOGIC OUTPATIENT PROCEDURES
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Quality Improvement & Patient Safety II (PD09)1 Apr 2020PD09-07 RETURNING THE ER: AN ANALYSIS OF EMERGENCY VISITS FOLLOWING UROLOGIC OUTPATIENT PROCEDURES Luke Witherspoon*, Rodney Breau, Christopher Knee, Ranjeeta Mallick, J. Stuart Oake, and Luke Lavallee Luke Witherspoon*Luke Witherspoon* More articles by this author , Rodney BreauRodney Breau More articles by this author , Christopher KneeChristopher Knee More articles by this author , Ranjeeta MallickRanjeeta Mallick More articles by this author , J. Stuart OakeJ. Stuart Oake More articles by this author , and Luke LavalleeLuke Lavallee More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000836.07AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Urologic surgeries have been previously identified as having high rates of readmission compared to other surgeries. This study aims to identify risk factors leading to presentation to the emergency department (ED) following urologic outpatient surgery. METHODS: We examined all outpatient surgeries performed by urology, general surgery, thoracic surgery, and gynecology occurring at three hospitals within The Ottawa Hospital system between April 1, 2008, and February 28, 2018. We captured all ED visits within 90 days of the outpatient procedure. Surgical characteristics included hospital campus, procedure end time, and day/month/year of procedure. Patient characteristics assessed included age, sex, marital status, presence of primary care provider, socioeconomic status (SES), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, and Elixhauser comorbidity index. RESULTS: 38,377 outpatient procedures were performed by the four services assessed over our time period. 5641 ED visits within 90 days were identified. Urological procedures accounted for 47.5% (n=2681) of the patients returning to the ED, representing a 16.2% rate of return to the emergency room following urologic day surgery. Furthermore, urologic patients were more likely to have several visits to the emergency room within 90 days compared to other surgical services (p<0.05). Univariable analyses of individual variables found that increased age, low SES, unmarried status were all associated with higher rates of ED visits (p<0.05). The median ER visit day post-procedure ranged from 5-17 depending on procedure type. Of the noted reasons for emergency presentation, the top 5 causes were directly related to urology with retention (11% of visits), and hematuria (10% of visits) being the most common. Of urological day surgery procedures ureteroscopy (Relative Risk (RR) 3.69, 95% CI 2.17,6.29), Greenlight Laser Photoselective Vaporization of the prostate (RR 3.6, 95% CI 2.05, 6.34), and ureteric stent insertion (RR 3.83, 95% CI 2.17, 6.76) had the highest rates of return to emergency in 90 days on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: ED visits following urologic outpatient procedures are common. This study identifies risk factors to identify patients that may benefit from additional education or support after outpatient urologic surgery to reduce ED care needs. Source of Funding: None © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e177-e177 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Luke Witherspoon* More articles by this author Rodney Breau More articles by this author Christopher Knee More articles by this author Ranjeeta Mallick More articles by this author J. Stuart Oake More articles by this author Luke Lavallee More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».