ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS) was designed to identify patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) who do not require hospitalisation. It may also help stratify patients unlikely to benefit from intensive care. DESIGN: We reviewed patients assigned a GBS in the emergency room (ER) via a semiautomated calculator. Patients with a score ≤7 (low risk) were directed to an unmonitored bed (UMB), while those with a score of ≥8 (high risk) were considered for MB placement. Conformity with guidelines and subsequent transfers to MB were reviewed, along with transfusion requirement, rebleeding, length of stay, need for intervention and death. RESULTS: Over 34 months, 1037 patients received a GBS in the ER. 745 had an UGIB. 235 (32%) of these patients had a GBS ≤7. 29 (12%) low-risk patients were admitted to MBs. Four low-risk patients admitted to UMB required transfer to MB within the first 48 hours. Low-risk patients admitted to UMBs were no more likely to die, rebleed, need transfusion or require more endoscopic, radiographic or surgical procedures than those admitted to MBs. No low-risk patient died from GIB. Patients with GBS ≥8 were more likely to rebleed, require transfusion and interventions to control bleeding but not to die. CONCLUSION: A semiautomated GBS calculator can be incorporated into an ER workflow. Patients with a GBS ≤7 are unlikely to need MB care for UGIB. Further studies are warranted to determine an ideal scoring system for MB admission.
Subject(s)
Emergency Service, Hospital , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage , Blood Transfusion , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/diagnosis , Humans , Risk Assessment , Severity of Illness IndexABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Knowledge about the cost of open, video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS), or robotic lung resection and drivers of cost is crucial as the cost of care comes under scrutiny. This study aims to define the cost of anatomic lung resection and evaluate potential cost-saving measures. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who had anatomic resection for early stage lung cancer, carcinoid, or metastatic foci between 2008 and 2012 was performed. Direct hospital cost data were collected from 10 categories. Capital depreciation was separated for the robotic and VATS cases. Key costs were varied in a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: In all, 184 consecutive patients were included: 69 open, 57 robotic, and 58 VATS. Comorbidities and complication rates were similar. Operative time was statistically different among the three modalities, but length of stay was not. There was no statistically significant difference in overall cost between VATS and open cases (Δ = $1,207) or open and robotic cases (Δ = $1,975). Robotic cases cost $3,182 more than VATS (p < 0.001) owing to the cost of robotic-specific supplies and depreciation. The main opportunities to reduce cost in open cases were the intensive care unit, respiratory therapy, and laboratories. Lowering operating time and supply costs were targets for VATS and robotic cases. CONCLUSIONS: VATS is the least expensive surgical approach. Robotic cases must be shorter in operative time or reduce supply costs, or both, to be competitive. Lessening operating time, eradicating unnecessary laboratory work, and minimizing intensive care unit stays will help decrease direct hospital costs.
