PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Hospital Records”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
PubMed2000

Ocular trauma in the United States Army: hospitalization records from 1985 through 1994.

PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of hospitalized ocular injury in the United States Army and evaluate specific types and external causes of these injuries. METHODS: A US Army database that captured all hospital discharge records for Army personnel admitted to military and civilian hospitals was used to determine incident episodes of ocular injury requiring hospitalization from 1985 through 1994. Denominator data were available from the US Army. RESULTS: The average annual incidence of hospitalization for a principal or secondary diagnosis of ocular trauma (total hospitalized ocular injury) was 77.1 per 100,000 persons (95% confidence interval, 75.1-79.2). There was a 38% decline in the rate of total hospitalized ocular injury during this 10-year period. Men had twice the rates of women over all age groups. The highest rate occurred in the 17- to 19-year age group, with rates of 220.7 and 123.4 per 100,000 in men and women, respectively. Whites had a higher rate than blacks and nonwhites-nonblacks. Almost a third of the injuries were contusions of the eye and adnexa. Among men, the leading causes were machinery or tools (21%), fights (18%), transport accidents (18%), and sports and training (11%). Only 7% were related to weaponry or war, and of these, 90% were from nonbattle activities. CONCLUSION: The type and cause of injury suggest that preventive measures may be effective in decreasing the incidence of ocular trauma requiring hospitalization in US Army personnel.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1989

Identification of people attending outpatients: congruity between hospital records and response to a postal screen.

A comparison of information obtained from a postal screen of people on the electoral register about attendance at outpatient clinics with data extracted from hospital records found agreement between the two sources for 87 per cent of people. This rose to 90 per cent after an interview follow-up of those whose replies were unclear. Given the complexities of defining outpatient attendances clearly, these levels of agreement seemed good. Fewer consultations were omitted by people when a three rather than a 12-month study period was used, but the particular three-month period used (January-March) may have contributed to this difference.

Data Collection↗
PubMed1995

The accuracy of hospital records and death certificates for acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: In Australia information on the incidence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is available from routinely collected morbidity and mortality data. Given that these data are used for monitoring AMI it is important to assess their quality. AIMS: This paper examines the accuracy of the hospital records and death certificates. METHODS: Morbidity and mortality data were compared with the Newcastle heart disease register which is part of the WHO MONICA Project for 1986-1991 and sensitivity and positive predictive values calculated. RESULTS: For non-fatal AMI the hospital diagnostic coding had sensitivity of 78.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 77.1%-80.7%), and positive predictive value of 65.6% (95% CI 63.7%-67.4%). Sensitivity was higher for men than for women and decreased with increasing age. Sensitivity was higher in those with no history of either AMI or other ischaemic heart disease (IHD), higher in current smokers than ex-smokers or never smokers, and lower in those with a self-reported history of high blood pressure. Sensitivity also varied among hospitals. Positive predictive value varied only with hospital. Both sensitivity and positive predictive value were high for death certificate data--89.9% (95% CI 88.4%-91.3%) and 96.0% (95% CI 95.1%-97.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although the mortality data appear to be quite accurate, the hospital data alone are not accurate enough to be used to estimate rates or trends of heart attacks. Additional data are required in order to determine numbers of non-fatal AMIs accurately.

Adult↗