Economic Analysis of Home <i>vs</i> Hospital‐Based Parenteral Nutrition in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advances in technology and infrastructure have facilitated transfer of complex services from acute care hospitals to the home. This increases the burden on community resources but may provide net savings to the health care system. We undertook a retrospective cohort study of patients transferred from hospital to home while receiving home parenteral nutrition (PN) to assess their costs of care. METHODS: A detailed review of medical records was undertaken for all patients managed by the Hamilton Health Sciences Home PN Program between 1996 and 2001 whose PN was initiated in hospital. Mean per diem direct medical costs were estimated from the perspective of the provincial Ministry of Health for 3 periods: the last 2 weeks before discharge and the first month after discharge. Costs were compared among time intervals and among patients subgroups defined by age and underlying disease. RESULTS: Twenty-nine eligible subjects were identified. Common indications for PN included malignancy (n = 12), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 6), and intestinal ischemia (n = 4). Mean per diem costs in the last week of hospitalization were higher than those in the first month after discharge (dollars 567 vs dollars 405, p < .0001). Acute care resources accounted for <10% of the overall costs on home PN. The estimated monthly savings per patient maintained on home PN were dollars 4860 (95% confidence interval dollars 2700-dollars 7000). Savings were even greater among patients with underlying malignancy and advanced age. CONCLUSIONS: Home PN is cost saving when compared with hospital-based PN. Neither age nor underlying malignancy should pose a barrier to receipt of home PN.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".