基于“互联网+”模式教学在肝胆胰外科护理教学中的效果分析

目的：探究基于“互联网+”模式教学在肝胆胰外科护理教学中的效果。方法：选取河南省人民医院2022年1月至2022年10月来肝胆胰外科实习护生200名作为研究对象,按照随机数字表分组方法分为对照组与观察组,各100例。对照组采用常规护理教学模式,观察组采用“互联网+”模式教学。比较两组实习护生考核成绩、学习能力、批判性思维能力及教学满意度。结果：观察组实习护生考核成绩、学习能力、批判性思维能力及教学满意度均高于对照组,差异具有统计学意义（P <0.05）。结论：在肝胆胰外科护理教学中采用“互联网+”教学模式可提升实习护生考试成绩、学习能力及批判性思维能力,并使其获得较高的教学满意度。     

基于“互联网+”技术的上海市质子重离子医院资产管理的 探索和实践

针对医院资产管理的现状和难点,将平台中的空间管理同资产管理相结合,进行数据交互和功能拓展,不仅使医院空间和资产同步系统化、数据化,而且汇聚了资产管理全维度数据源,达到优化资源配置、降本增效的实践成果,也为建立基于云数据的资产设备全生命周期管理夯实基础。     

互联网+“五全六能”社区楼/院式养老模式试点运行效果初探

目的对互联网+“五全六能”社区楼/院式养老模式实地运行效果进行评价。方法2019年6月—2019年12月在南昌市两个社区开展该模式试点运行,采用自制问卷收集运行期间养老对象与管理人员等信息反馈进行统计分析与讨论。结果两社区试点实验养老对象在生物学特征上无明显差别;该模式的“六能”服务内容中“医疗保健”“生活照料”和“精神慰藉”是试点实验养老对象认为最重要;两社区各类试点实验对象满意度均达到80.00%以上,楼栋长为100.00%。结论互联网+“五全六能”社区楼/院式养老模式适用于城市老人养老,具有较高的推广价值。     

互联网医患功能沟通质量综合评价研究

在前期研究基础上,参考TOPSIS综合评价法,对我国互联网医患功能沟通质量进行综合评价。比较了不同患者主动程度组、不同医院级别组、不同医生职称组的沟通质量水平差异,认为在互联网医患沟通中,提升患者主动程度、选择高级别的医院和高职称的医生,对于促进互联网医患功能沟通质量水平提升具有重要意义。     

ROCCIPI框架下“互联网＋护理服务”模式的构建

以ROCCIPI技术作为理论框架,构建“互联网＋护理服务”模式,包括完善组织架构、建立信息平台、护士选拔与培训、确定服务内容、确定收费标准、服务流程、质量控制与安全保障等。“互联网＋护理服务”开展后,护士在线问诊患者2 982例,患者满意度为96.78%,上门护理服务患者59例,患者满意度为100%。基于ROCCIPI构建的“互联网＋护理服务”模式能够满足居民多元化健康管理需求,提高患者满意度。但仍需根据患者需求及方案要求循序渐进增设上门护理服务项目;对接省级监管平台,与医保部门协商报销方案;加强“互联网＋护理服务”宣传力度,进一步优化患者端申请操作流程;完善问卷内容与评分标准。     

基于分级诊疗的“互联网+护理服务”模式探索

“互联网+护理服务”是满足居家患者服务需求的主要形式之一。以分级诊疗为基础,依托“互联网医院”平台,初步探索构建了医联体内“互联网+护理服务”模式。认为基于分级诊疗的“互联网+护理服务”模式能够满足患者延续性护理服务需求,保障患者享受同质化护理服务,促使护理资源合理分配和有效利用。     

基于Kano模型的互联网医院患者就医服务需求分析

目的调查分析互联网医院患者就医服务需求,探讨服务质量改进措施。方法自行设计基于Kano模型互联网医院患者就医服务需求调查问卷,对某院线上和线下就诊患者进行问卷调查,运用Kano分析法对服务需求进行分类,根据满意度影响力矩阵分析提出改进措施。结果诊前、诊中、诊后三个维度下的互联网医院19个服务项目中,基本属性6个,期望属性7个,魅力属性6个。影响力矩阵分析显示,1个项目归属于提升服务标准区,7个项目归属于创新服务项目区,5个项目归属于维系服务质量区,6个项目归属于提升服务质量区。结论Kano模型的科学应用,可优化互联网医院就诊流程,提高患者就医满意度和医院工作效率,助力医疗服务质量提升。     

Cost of Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty at a Tertiary Medical Center

BackgroundRevision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) involves varying levels of case complexity and costs depending on the following: (1) number of components revised, (2) duration of operating room time, and (3) length of hospital stay. However, the cost associated with different types of aseptic TKA revisions, based on number and type of components revised, is not well described. We sought to determine differences in cost associated with different revision types, and to correlate this with average national hospital and surgeon reimbursement based on current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data.MethodsThis is a retrospective review of aseptic revision TKAs performed at a single tertiary referral center from 2015 to 2018. Patient demographic data, operating room time, and direct surgery and total hospital costs obtained from an internal accounting database (Enterprise Performance Systems, Inc) were collected. Patients were stratified by the components revised (polyethylene liner only, tibia only, femur only, or both femur and tibia). We hypothesized that direct surgery and total hospital costs would increase as case complexity increased from poly exchange to single-component revisions and both-component revisions.ResultsIn total, 106 patients were included (19 poly exchanges, 10 tibia-only revisions, 13 femur-only revisions, and 64 both-component revisions). Operating room time was significantly lower for poly exchange than all other groups (P < .001). Direct surgery and total hospital costs were significantly lower for poly exchange than all other groups (P < .001), and were significantly lower for tibia-only and femur-only revisions compared to both-component revisions (P < .001). Average national surgeon reimbursement by Medicare decreased as a percentage of direct surgery cost as case complexity increased from poly exchange to tibia-only, femur-only, and both-component revisions. Total hospital cost per average Diagnosis Related Group weight was lowest for single-component revisions and highest for both-component revision.ConclusionThere are significant differences in cost associated with aseptic TKA revisions based on number and type of components revised. These differences may not be accurately reflected in reimbursement, and often represent a burden to those who treat complex revisions.     

The Hospital Frailty Risk Score is Not an Accurate Predictor of Treatment Costs for Total Joint Replacement Patients in a Medicare Bundled Payment Population

BackgroundMedically complex patients require more resources and experience higher costs within total joint arthroplasty (TJA) bundled payment models. While risk adjustment would be beneficial for such patients, no tool currently exists which can reliably identify these patients preoperatively. The purpose of this study is to determine if the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) is a valid predictor of high-TJA treatment costs.MethodsRetrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent primary TJA between 2015 and 2020 from a single large orthopedic practice. ICD-10 codes from an institutional database were used to calculate HFRS. Cost data including inpatient, postacute, and episode of care (EOC) costs were collected. Charlson comorbidity index, demographics, readmissions, and complications were analyzed.Results4936 patients had a calculable HFRS and those with intermediate and high scores experienced more frequent readmissions/complications after TJA, as well as higher EOC costs. However, HFRS did not reliably predict EOC costs, yielding a sensitivity of 49% and specificity of 66%. Multivariate analysis revealed that both patient age and sex are superior individual cost predictors when compared with HFRS. Secondary analyses indicated that HFRS more effectively predicts TJA complications and readmissions but is still nonideal for clinical applications.ConclusionHFRS has poor sensitivity as a predictor of high-EOC costs for TJA patients but has adequate specificity for predicting postoperative readmissions and complications. Further research is needed to develop a scale that can appropriately predict orthopedic cost outcomes.     

Emergency Department Observation Versus Readmission Following total Joint Arthroplasty: Can We Avoid the Bundle Buster?

BackgroundAs the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) moves toward bundled payment plans for total joint arthroplasty (TJA), it becomes necessary to reduce factors that increase cost for an episode of care such as readmissions. The goal of this study is to evaluate the payment for observation stay versus readmission for patients who present to the emergency department.MethodsA retrospective review from 2014-2019 was conducted identifying all Medicare patients who had a primary, elective TJA and visited the ED within 90 days postoperatively. If a readmission was one midnight or less or had an equivalent diagnosis to an observation stay patient, it was characterized as a readmission that could have qualified as an observation stay. Using our institution’s average payment for Medicare readmissions and observations, actual and potential savings were calculated.ResultsSixty-nine out of 523 (13.2%) patients were placed under observation, while 454 (86.8%) patients were readmitted. Eighty-six out of 523 (18.9%) patients qualified for observation status. There was an actual savings of 11.8% by placing patients on observation status and readmission rate was decreased by 13.2%. Savings could have increased by a total of 27.7% and readmissions decreased by a total of 29.6% if all patients who qualified had been placed on observation status.ConclusionAt our institution, the implementation of observation stay has led to a savings of 11.8% and a potential total savings of 27.7%. The rate of readmissions was decreased by 13.2% and had the potential to decrease by a total of 29.6%.