Subject
Female; Humans; Male; Aged; Middle Aged; Equipment and Supplies; hospice; Patient Admission; Emergency Service; 80 and over; retrospective studies; DNAR; DNAR Outcomes; Surgical Procedures; Critical Illness/ep [Epidemiology]; Palliative Care/ut [Utilization]; Critical Illness/ec [Economics]; Emergency Service; Hospital Costs/sn [Statistics & Numerical Data]; Intensive Care/ec [Economics]; Length of Stay/ec [Economics]; Palliative Care/ec [Economics]; Code status; Direct Service Costs/sn [Statistics & Numerical Data]; health care cost; Hospital/ec [Economics]; Hospital/ut [Utilization]; Intensive Care/ut [Utilization]; Laboratories; Length of Stay/sn [Statistics & Numerical Data]; Operative/ec [Economics]; palliation; Radiology Department; Respiratory Care Units/ec [Economics]; United States/ep [Epidemiology]
Description
INTRODUCTION: Delayed discussion of a patient's code status can lead to shortsighted care plans that increase hospital length of stay (LOS) and costs., METHODS: Retrospective study compared intensive care unit (ICU) patients who accepted verses rejected palliation and examined the relationships between 5 predictor variables with the outcome variables ICU LOS and total hospital LOS, and total direct and variable hospital cost., RESULTS: A significant number of patients who accepted palliative care agreed to a hospice referral or expired in the hospital. The relationships between days until a family conference, do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order, and the number of invasive procedures were significant., CONCLUSIONS: The amount of time that expires until the issue of code status was settled to clearly related to utilization of hospital resources.
2010