Suction catheter usage and cost at long-term care hospitals in Republic of Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A substantial number of Korean patients who require tracheostomy or oral suctioning are admitted to long-term care hospitals. However, under the Korea’s current daily fixed-rate reimbursement system, the cost of suction catheters is a considerable financial burden. To further discuss proper reimbursement policies for suction catheters in South Korean long-term care system, we examined the number and cost of suction catheters used in a long-term care hospital. This study is a single-center prospective cohort observational study that was conducted on patients admitted to the step-down unit at Ajou University Intermediate Care Hospital. Data of 47 patients were collected for this study. The average amount of suction catheter use per person was 529 during the 62 days of the study period. Daily suction catheter usage showed a statistically significant difference between patients with and without tracheostomy (10.5 ± 6.9 vs 2.1 ± 3.3, p-value < .001). It also showed a significant difference between patients who were diagnosed with or without pneumonia during hospitalization (12.3 ± 4.2 vs 5.5 ± 4.2, p-value < .001). The estimated cost of suction catheter usage for 30 days on a single patient who has tracheostomy was about 160,000 Korean won ($160), which was about 7.3% of the total monthly reimbursement. With the current reimbursement system, there is a potential risk of improper reuse and underuse of suction catheters. To improve respiratory care and prevent pneumonia, we suggest a separate reimbursement system for suction catheters for patients with tracheostomy in South Korean long-term care hospitals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".