摘要
目的评价冠心病急性心肌梗死使用专科临床路径的实用性、可操作性及效益。方法将50例住院的急性心肌梗死患者进行分组,经社区转入心内科病房接受临床路径者作为实验组(n=27例),同期住院的同种疾病住院未接受临床路径者作为对照组(n=23)。实验组患者均接受相同的临床路径实施方法,并进行严格质量控制。对两组患者的住院天数、再住院率、住院医疗总费用、分项费用进行比较。结果实验组与对照组患者平均住院天数、再住院率、住院医疗总费用间差别均无显著性意义(P>0.05);实验组与对照组患者住院除治疗费间差别无显著性意义外(P>0.05),在化验费、检查费、西药费、床位费间差异均有显著性意义(P<0.05)。结论两组冠心病患者在住院天数、再住院率、住院医疗总费用方面未显示出差别,考虑与一些干扰因素有关,但在分项费用上实验组患者明显低于对照组,说明专科临床路径有一定积极意义,但尚有局限性。
Objective To evaluate the practicability, feasibility and efficiency of application of the Professional Clinical Pathway in the Patients with the Acute Myocardial Infarction of the Coronary Heart Disease. Methods A total of 50 patients with acute myocardial infarction, transferred from the Social Health Center and admitted concurrently, were divided as experimental group （n = 27 cases） received the professional clinical pathway; and control group （n = 23 cases） not received the pathway and admission. The whole clinical courses were strictly controlled in quality so as to compare the admission day, re - hospitalization rate, total and concrete medical fees of the patients in 2 groups. Results There was no significant difference in admission day between the two groups （P 〉 0.05）, no significant difference in the re - hospitalization rate （P 〉 0.05）, and no significant difference in total medical fee （P 〉 0.05）; but there is significant difference in the fees of laboratory test, examination, medicine and ward bed between the two groups （P 〈 0.05）. Conclusion The result that no significant difference was found in admission day, re - hospitalization rate and total medical fee between the two groups may be caused by some interfering factors. However significant differences in fees of complete items showed a certain positive action of the professional clinical pathway, but there was still some limits.
出处
《中国全科医学》
CAS
CSCD
2006年第5期392-394,共3页
Chinese General Practice
关键词
冠状动脉硬化
急性心肌梗死
专科临床路径
Coronary arteriosclerosis
Acute myocardiac infarction
Professional clinical pathway
