We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Emergency Department Observation Unit versus hospital inpatient care for a chronic asthmatic population: a randomized trial of health status outcome and cost.
Medical Care 1998 April
OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to determine if an accelerated treatment protocol administered to acute asthmatics presenting to a Hospital Emergency Department Observation Unit (EDOU) can offset the need for inpatient admissions and reduce total cost per episode of care without sacrificing patient quality of life.
METHODS: The authors used a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing postintervention patient quality of life for EDOU care versus standard inpatient care as measured by the standardized Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) SF-36 instrument. Other measures reported include: clinical status as measured by peak flow rates, total cost per treatment arm using microcosting techniques, and relapse-free survival 8 weeks after treatment. Eligible patients (n = 113) were assigned randomly to an EDOU or inpatient care from a consecutive sample of 250 acute asthmatic patients presenting to an urban hospital emergency department who could not resolve their acute asthma exacerbation after 3 hours of emergency department therapy.
RESULTS: Patients assigned to the EDOU had lower mean costs of treatment (EDOU = $1,202 versus Hospital Inpatient = $2,247) and higher quality of life outcomes after intervention in five of eight domains measured by the MOS SF-36: Physical Functioning, Role Functioning-Emotional, Social Functioning, Mental Health, and Vitality. No differences were found in clinical outcomes as measured by peak flow rates or postintervention relapse-free survival. Univariate comparative findings were re-examined and confirmed through multivariable analysis when baseline SF-36 scores and postintervention peak expiratory flow rates clinical status were used as covariates.
CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that the EDOU was a lower cost and more effective treatment alternative for a refractory asthmatic population presenting to the Emergency Department. Several baseline MOS SF-36 domains proved useful in predicting or validating posttreatment clinical status, relapse, and total costs of care. Outcome SF-36 domain scores were also useful in identifying patients with the most favorable clinical, cost, and relapse rate outcomes at the study endpoint.
METHODS: The authors used a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing postintervention patient quality of life for EDOU care versus standard inpatient care as measured by the standardized Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) SF-36 instrument. Other measures reported include: clinical status as measured by peak flow rates, total cost per treatment arm using microcosting techniques, and relapse-free survival 8 weeks after treatment. Eligible patients (n = 113) were assigned randomly to an EDOU or inpatient care from a consecutive sample of 250 acute asthmatic patients presenting to an urban hospital emergency department who could not resolve their acute asthma exacerbation after 3 hours of emergency department therapy.
RESULTS: Patients assigned to the EDOU had lower mean costs of treatment (EDOU = $1,202 versus Hospital Inpatient = $2,247) and higher quality of life outcomes after intervention in five of eight domains measured by the MOS SF-36: Physical Functioning, Role Functioning-Emotional, Social Functioning, Mental Health, and Vitality. No differences were found in clinical outcomes as measured by peak flow rates or postintervention relapse-free survival. Univariate comparative findings were re-examined and confirmed through multivariable analysis when baseline SF-36 scores and postintervention peak expiratory flow rates clinical status were used as covariates.
CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that the EDOU was a lower cost and more effective treatment alternative for a refractory asthmatic population presenting to the Emergency Department. Several baseline MOS SF-36 domains proved useful in predicting or validating posttreatment clinical status, relapse, and total costs of care. Outcome SF-36 domain scores were also useful in identifying patients with the most favorable clinical, cost, and relapse rate outcomes at the study endpoint.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app