Biomedical subjects

Marie Cowan

Publications and source records attributed to Marie Cowan.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2007

Methods for improving regression analysis for skewed continuous or counted responses.

Standard inference procedures for regression analysis make assumptions that are rarely satisfied in practice. Adjustments must be made to insure the validity of statistical inference. These adjustments, known for many years, are used routinely by some health researchers but not by others. We review some of these methods and give an example of their use in a health services study for a continuous and a count outcome. For the continuous outcome, we describe re-transformation using the smear factor, accounting for missing cases via multiple imputation and attrition weights and improving results with bootstrap methods. For the count outcome, we describe zero inflated Poisson and negative binomial models and the two-part model to account for overabundance of zero values. Recent advances in computing and software development have produced user-friendly computer programs that enable the data analyst to improve prediction and inference based on regression analysis.

Data Interpretation, Statistical↗

PubMed2006

Health-related quality of life and patient reports about care outcomes in a multidisciplinary hospital intervention.

BACKGROUND: Patient perceptions of care and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) are important outcomes for hospitalized patients. PURPOSE: This study examined patient experiences with hospital care and HRQOL in individuals hospitalized at a west coast teaching hospital. METHODS: We assessed patient experiences with care and HRQOL using interviews with 1,207 hospitalized, general medicine patients participating in a multidisciplinary provider team intervention at a large academic medical center. Patient outcome variables included the Picker dimensions of hospital care (Continuity and Transition, Coordination of Care, Emotional Support, Information and Education, Involvement of Family and Friends, Physical Comfort, Respect for Patient Preferences, Overall Impression), the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI-3), and the SF-12 physical (PCS-12) and mental health (MCS-12) summary scores. RESULTS: Patients randomized to a multidisciplinary intervention reported higher emotional support (b = 3.32), t(903) = 2.01, p =.044, and physical comfort (b = 3.49), t(863) = 2.25, p = .025, from health care providers than did the control group, but these effects became nonsignificant after adjusting for multiple comparisons. The HUI-3, PCS-12, and MCS-12 summary scores improved significantly from baseline to the 30-day, ts(943, 919, 860) = 4.94, 2.20, and 5.31, ps < .0001, = .03, and < .0001, respectively, and the 4-month follow-ups, ts(871, 919, 943) = 7.25, 8.68, and 8.08, ps < .001, < .001, and < .0001, respectively, but change on these measures did not differ between intervention and control patients. Baseline health was significantly associated with patient evaluations of hospital care, but patient evaluations did not predict future health. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in reports and ratings of hospital care or HRQOL between the control and the intervention groups. Hence, the behavioral changes in hospital staff in the intervention group had no effect on patient-reported outcomes. Mental health at baseline was predictive of patient evaluations of the hospitalization, but evaluations of care were not associated with subsequent HRQOL. Thus, it may be important to adjust patient evaluations of hospital care for case-mix differences in health.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2005

Effect of a multidisciplinary intervention on communication and collaboration among physicians and nurses.

BACKGROUND: Improving communication and collaboration among doctors and nurses can improve satisfaction among participants and improve patients' satisfaction and quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of a multidisciplinary intervention on communication and collaboration among doctors and nurses on an acute inpatient medical unit. METHODS: During a 2-year period, an intervention unit was created that differed from the control unit by the addition of a nurse practitioner to each inpatient medical team, the appointment of a hospitalist medical director, and the institution of daily multidisciplinary rounds. Surveys about communication and collaboration were administered to personnel in both units. Physicians were surveyed at the completion of each rotation on the unit; nurses, biannually. RESULTS: Response rates for house staff (n = 111), attending physicians (n = 45), and nurses (n = 123) were 58%, 69%, and 91%, respectively. Physicians in the intervention group reported greater collaboration with nurses than did physicians in the control group (P < .001); the largest effect was among the residents. Physicians in the intervention group reported better collaboration with the nurse practitioners than with the staff nurses (P < .001). Physicians in the intervention group also reported better communication with fellow physicians than did physicians in the control group (P = .006). Nurses in both groups reported similar levels of communication (P = .59) and collaboration (P = .47) with physicians. Nurses in the intervention group reported better communication with nurse practitioners than with physicians (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The multidisciplinary intervention resulted in better communication and collaboration among the participants.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

An alternative approach to reducing the costs of patient care? A controlled trial of the multi-disciplinary doctor-nurse practitioner (MDNP) model.

OBJECTIVE: Hospitals adapt to changing market conditions by exploring new care models that allow them to maintain high quality while containing costs. The authors examined the net cost savings associated with care management by teams of physicians and nurse practitioners, along with daily multidisciplinary rounds and postdischarge patient follow-up. METHODS: One thousand two hundred and seven general medicine inpatients in an academic medical center were randomized to the intervention versus usual care. Intervention costs were compared to the difference in nonintervention costs, estimated by comparing changes between preadmission and postadmission in regression-adjusted costs for intervention versus usual care patients. Intervention costs were calculated by assigning hourly costs to the time spent by different providers on the intervention. Patient costs during the index hospital stay were estimated from administrative records and during the 4-month follow-up by weighting self-reported utilization by unit costs. RESULTS: Intervention costs were $1187 per patient and associated with a significant $3331 reduction in nonintervention costs. About $1947 of the savings were realized during the initial hospital stay, with the remainder attributable to reductions in postdischarge service use. After adjustment for possible attrition bias, a reasonable estimate of the cost offset was $2165, for a net cost savings of $978 per patient. Because health outcomes were comparable for the 2 groups, the intervention was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Wider adoption of multidisciplinary interventions in similar settings might be considered. The savings previously reported with hospitalist models may also be achievable with other models that focus on efficient inpatient care and appropriate postdischarge care.

Adolescent↗