PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Edwin J Zarling

Publications and source records attributed to Edwin J Zarling.

3 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Prolonging the return visit interval in primary care.

PURPOSE: Extending the scheduled return visit interval has been suggested as one means to improve clinic access to the provider. However, prolonging the return visit interval may affect quality of care if prevention measures and chronic disease management receive less attention as clinic visits become less frequent. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a comprehensive education program could encourage providers to lengthen their return visit interval without compromising performance on key quality indicators. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study monitoring scheduling and performance data of primary care providers at the Milwaukee Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Following collection of baseline data (January through June 1999), providers were encouraged to lengthen the return visit interval while increasing reliance on nurses and other clinic staff for interim management of chronic disease. Provider-specific feedback of return visit interval and performance data was utilized to motivate behavioral change. Scheduling and clinical data were abstracted from random medical record audits performed at baseline and from July through December in the years 2000 and 2001. RESULTS: Compared with the baseline period, the percent of patients scheduled > or =6 months was significantly increased among staff providers and medicine residents at 2 years (Staff providers: 31% vs. 62%, P <0.001; Medicine residents: 22 vs. 44%, P <0.001). Colorectal screening, pneumonia immunizations, and achievement of therapeutic goals for diabetes, hypertension, and lipid disorders significantly improved at 2 years compared with baseline measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Educational interventions can successfully retrain providers to extend the return visit interval and reduce the scheduling of routine and perhaps unnecessary appointments. This can be accomplished without compromising important performance monitors for diabetes, lipid disorders, hypertension, and prevention.

Chronic Disease↗
PubMed2003

Impact of American College of Surgeons verification on trauma outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of trauma patient outcomes before and after Level II American College of Surgeons (ACS) verification was received in a not-for-profit community hospital. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of hospital discharge data for timeframes before and after Level II ACS verification was conducted. Originally, 8,674 patients were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision codes for trauma. These data were parsed to 7,811 patients by using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision codes 800 xx through 959.9 x, which signify an admitting diagnosis of trauma; 3,835 of the patients were admitted after the July 28, 1998, verification date. Blunt injuries constituted the vast majority of the patients (n = 7,488). Outcome measures studied included changes in length of stay (LOS), mortality, and total cost. Internal control was coronary artery bypass graft patients at the same hospital, and external control was trauma patients at a non-ACS hospital over the same time period. Data are presented with p values and SE and the ratio of observed/expected values on the basis of the all-payer severity-adjusted diagnosis-related group severity model. RESULTS: The two timeframes exhibited statistically different outcomes in several variables. Adjusting for severity postverification, LOS was 10% less (p < 0.000). Similarly, severity-adjusted mortality observed/expected ratios were significantly different: 0.81 before versus 0.59 after (p < 0.000). The severity-adjusted ratio of costs found that the postverification era was 5% lower (p < 0.000). The contribution margin of the trauma patient population to the hospital well exceeded any postverification costs. Both control groups exhibited no significant changes in their severity-adjusted outcomes, which could have invalidated these results. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the efforts and resources consumed achieving ACS Level II trauma center verification appear to result in desired outcomes as evidenced by decreased LOS, reduced in-hospital mortality rates, reduced cost, and improved contribution margins.

Accreditation↗