To examine the lengths of stay of chronic status patients in an acute care hospital, to identify discharge stages that contribute to excessive stays, to estimate the length of stay at each discharge stage and to link hospital bed-day utilization by the discharge stage to the experience of the patient.
Two-year prospective cohort study. The number of hospital days retrospective to the date of the current admission were included in the analysis.
University hospital.
All 115 inpatients formally declared as achieving chronic status by July 31, 1987.
Lengths of stay (total days and days at acute and chronic status) for chronic status patients, including those still in hospital at the end of the study period. Each bed-day was assigned to a discharge stage that corresponded to the patient's status. The disposition of each patient by the end of the study period was reviewed.
The study population spent a total of 101 585 days in hospital. The total length of stay per patient was nearly four times that stated in the hospital's annual report, in which the figure was calculated only on the basis of discharge data. On average only 77.2 (8.7%) of the days were spent in acute care. The remaining days were at the chronic level: 24.1% were spent waiting for completion of an application to a long-term care facility, 25.3% for application approval and 41.9% for an available bed in the assigned long-term care institution. For 30 patients no initiation of the discharge process was ever undertaken. As the number of patients in each progressive discharge stage decreased, the wait per patient increased. By the end of the study period only 32 patients had been transferred to a public long-term care facility; 22 were still in hospital, and 35 had died waiting for placement.
Although considered to be a useful measure of hospital efficiency, length of stay determined from discharge data creates an iceberg effect when applied to chronic status patients in acute care hospitals. Lack of access to the assigned resource is the most important reason for a delay in discharge. Interventions, whether undertaken at the patient, hospital or provincial level, must to some degree address this issue. Further study is required to determine which risk factors will predict lags at each discharge stage. Since our discharge staging reflects not only the experience of the patient but also the utilization of hospital bed-days and access to provincial resources, it provides a common language for clinicians, hospital administrators and systems planners.
Notes
Cites: Gerontology. 1981;27(3):167-726786960
Cites: Br Med J. 1977 May 28;1(6073):1395-6193607
Cites: Med Care. 1982 Feb;20(2):188-2017043119
Cites: N Engl J Med. 1983 Jan 13;308(2):71-56401195
Cites: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1983 Feb;64(2):57-606824419
Cites: Med Care. 1983 Nov;21(11):1055-616686273
Cites: Gerontologist. 1985 Apr;25(2):161-53921432
Cites: J Am Geriatr Soc. 1985 Jun;33(6):422-83923086
Cites: Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986 May 10;292(6530):1251-33085801
Cites: Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986 May 10;292(6530):1253-63085802
Cites: N Z Med J. 1986 Jun 25;99(804):461-43461373
Cites: J Am Geriatr Soc. 1987 Aug;35(8):726-363301989
Cites: Dimens Health Serv. 1987 Nov;64(8):20-23121420
Cites: Hospitals. 1988 Jan 5;62(1):23, 263335341
Cites: J Am Geriatr Soc. 1988 Mar;36(3):202-83123542
Cites: Hospitals. 1988 Apr 5;62(7):33, 363350485
Cites: N Z Med J. 1988 Sep 14;101(853):575-73419687
Cites: BMJ. 1988 Oct 8;297(6653):910-23140977
Cites: Health Serv Res. 1988 Dec;23(5):619-473060449
Cites: Med Care. 1989 Jan;27(1):25-332492065
Cites: Med Care. 1989 Feb;27(2):112-292918764
Cites: Gerontologist. 1989 Feb;29(1):67-732666275
Cites: Med Care. 1989 Nov;27(11):1002-142586184
Cites: CMAJ. 1990 Mar 15;142(6):565-722107020
Cites: Inquiry. 1990 Spring;27(1):73-852139009
Cites: Br Med J. 1975 Dec 6;4(5996):568-91203672
Cites: Age Ageing. 1975 Aug;4(3):142-71211299
Cites: J Health Polit Policy Law. 1981 Spring;6(1):49-616790601