Show simple item record

Differences in designations of observation care in US freestanding children's hospitals: Are they virtual or real?

dc.contributor.authorMacy, Michelle L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHall, Matthewen_US
dc.contributor.authorShah, Samir S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHronek, Carlaen_US
dc.contributor.authorDel Beccaro, Mark A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHain, Paul D.en_US
dc.contributor.authorAlpern, Elizabeth R.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-05-21T15:47:00Z
dc.date.available2013-06-11T19:15:46Zen_US
dc.date.issued2012-04en_US
dc.identifier.citationMacy, Michelle L.; Hall, Matthew; Shah, Samir S.; Hronek, Carla; Del Beccaro, Mark A.; Hain, Paul D.; Alpern, Elizabeth R. (2012). "Differences in designations of observation care in US freestanding children's hospitals: Are they virtual or real? ." Journal of Hospital Medicine 7(4): 287-293. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/91108>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1553-5592en_US
dc.identifier.issn1553-5606en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/91108
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: To characterize practices related to observation care and to examine the current models of pediatric observation medicine in US children's hospitals. DESIGN: We utilized 2 web‐based surveys to examine observation care in the 42 hospitals participating in the Pediatric Health Information System database. We obtained information regarding the designation of observation status, including the criteria used to admit patients into observation. From hospitals reporting the use of observation status, we requested specific details relating to the structures of observation care and the processes of care for observation patients following emergency department treatment. RESULTS: A total of 37 hospitals responded to Survey 1, and 20 hospitals responded to Survey 2. Designated observation units were present in only 12 of 31 (39%) hospitals that report observation patient data to the Pediatric Health Information System. Observation status was variably defined in terms of duration of treatment and prespecified criteria. Observation periods were limited to <48 hours in 24 of 31 (77%) hospitals. Hospitals reported that various standards were used by different payers to determine observation status reimbursement. Observation care was delivered in a variety of settings. Most hospitals indicated that there were no differences in the clinical care delivered to virtual observation status patients when compared with other inpatients. CONCLUSIONS: Observation is a variably applied patient status, defined differently by individual hospitals. Consistency in the designation of patients under observation status among hospitals and payers may be necessary to compare quality outcomes and costs, as well as optimize models of pediatric observation care. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2012;. © 2011 Society of Hospital Medicine.en_US
dc.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.titleDifferences in designations of observation care in US freestanding children's hospitals: Are they virtual or real?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMedicine (General)en_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Emergency Medicine and the Child Health Evaluation and Research (CHEAR) Unit, Division of General Pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDivision of General Pediatrics, 300 North Ingalls 6C13, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109‐5456en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDivision of Emergency Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvaniaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennesseeen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle Children's, Seattle, Washingtonen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDivision of Infectious Diseases, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Department of Pediatrics, and Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvaniaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherChild Health Corporation of America, Shawnee Mission, Kansasen_US
dc.identifier.pmid22031487en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/91108/1/949_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/jhm.949en_US
dc.identifier.sourceJournal of Hospital Medicineen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBalik B, Seitz CH, Gilliam T. When the patient requires observation not hospitalization. J Nurs Admin. 1988; 18 ( 10 ): 20 – 23.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHoholik S. Hospital ‘observation’ status a matter of billing. The Columbus Dispatch. February 14, 2011.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGeorge J. Hospital payments downgraded. Philadelphia Business Journal. February 18, 2011.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJaffe S. Medicare rules give full hospital benefits only to those with ‘inpatient’ status. The Washington Post. September 7, 2010.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceClark C. Hospitals caught between a rock and a hard place over observation. Health Leaders Media. September 15, 2010.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceClark C. AHA: observation status fears on the rise. Health Leaders Media. October 29, 2010.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrody JE. Put your hospital bill under a microscope. The New York Times. September 13, 2010.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMedicare Hospital Manual Section 455. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; 2001.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBarsuk J, Casey D, Graff L, Green A, Mace S. The Observation Unit: An Operational Overview for the Hospitalist. Society of Hospital Medicine White Paper. May 21, 2009. Available at: http://www.hospitalmedicine.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications/White Papers/White_Papers.htm. Accessed May 21, 2009.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAlpern ER, Calello DP, Windreich R, Osterhoudt K, Shaw KN. Utilization and unexpected hospitalization rates of a pediatric emergency department 23‐hour observation unit. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2008; 24 ( 9 ): 589 – 594.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZebrack M, Kadish H, Nelson D. The pediatric hybrid observation unit: an analysis of 6477 consecutive patient encounters. Pediatrics. 2005; 115 ( 5 ): e535 – e542.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMacy ML, Kim CS, Sasson C, Lozon MM, Davis MM. Pediatric observation units in the United States: a systematic review. J Hosp Med. 2010; 5 ( 3 ): 172 – 182.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShaw KN, Ruddy RM, Gorelick MH. Pediatric emergency department directors' benchmarking survey: fiscal year 2001. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2003; 19 ( 3 ): 143 – 147.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCrocetti MT, Barone MA, Amin DD, Walker AR. Pediatric observation status beds on an inpatient unit: an integrated care model. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2004; 20 ( 1 ): 17 – 21.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMarks MK, Lovejoy FH Jr, Rutherford PA, Baskin MN. Impact of a short stay unit on asthma patients admitted to a tertiary pediatric hospital. Qual Manag Health Care. 1997; 6 ( 1 ): 14 – 22.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMace SE, Graff L, Mikhail M, Ross M. A national survey of observation units in the United States. Am J Emerg Med. 2003; 21 ( 7 ): 529 – 533.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYealy DM, De Hart DA, Ellis G, Wolfson AB. A survey of observation units in the United States. Am J Emerg Med. 1989; 7 ( 6 ): 576 – 580.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGreenberg RA, Dudley NC, Rittichier KK. A reduction in hospitalization, length of stay, and hospital charges for croup with the institution of a pediatric observation unit. Am J Emerg Med. 2006; 24 ( 7 ): 818 – 821.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceListernick R, Zieserl E, Davis AT. Outpatient oral rehydration in the United States. Am J Dis Child. 1986; 140 ( 3 ): 211 – 215.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHolsti M, Kadish HA, Sill BL, Firth SD, Nelson DS. Pediatric closed head injuries treated in an observation unit. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2005; 21 ( 10 ): 639 – 644.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMallory MD, Kadish H, Zebrack M, Nelson D. Use of pediatric observation unit for treatment of children with dehydration caused by gastroenteritis. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2006; 22 ( 1 ): 1 – 6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiescier MJ, Nelson DS, Firth SD, Kadish HA. Children with asthma admitted to a pediatric observation unit. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2005; 21 ( 10 ): 645 – 649.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKrugman SD, Suggs A, Photowala HY, Beck A. Redefining the community pediatric hospitalist: the combined pediatric ED/inpatient unit. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2007; 23 ( 1 ): 33 – 37.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAbenhaim HA, Kahn SR, Raffoul J, Becker MR. Program description: a hospitalist‐run, medical short‐stay unit in a teaching hospital. Can Med Assoc J. 2000; 163 ( 11 ): 1477 – 1480.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHung GR, Kissoon N. Impact of an observation unit and an emergency department‐admitted patient transfer mandate in decreasing overcrowding in a pediatric emergency department: a discrete event simulation exercise. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2009; 25 ( 3 ): 160 – 163.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFieldston ES, Hall M, Sills MR, et al. Children's hospitals do not acutely respond to high occupancy. Pediatrics. 125 ( 5 ): 974 – 981.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMacy ML, Stanley RM, Lozon MM, Sasson C, Gebremariam A, Davis MM. Trends in high‐turnover stays among children hospitalized in the United States, 1993‐2003. Pediatrics. 2009; 123 ( 3 ): 996 – 1002.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGraff LG. Observation medicine: the healthcare system's tincture of time. In: Graff LG, ed. Principles of Observation Medicine. Dallas, TX: American College of Emergency Physicians; 2010. Available at: http://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=46142. Accessed February 18, 2011.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.