Assessing the causes inducing lengthening of hospital stays by means of the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol
Objectives The objective is to evaluate the use of the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP) as a screening tool for determining the causes of the non-justified days to help hospitals to decrease the length of stay while preserving the quality of care.Methods Three successive cross-sectional surveys were conducted from 2003 till 2005, in 23 Belgian hospitals. During this period, 10Â 921 days were audited by means of the AEP. This study is focused on adult acute non-intensive care units. The appropriateness of each day of the sample was assessed, and for those considered as inappropriate, the reasons explaining the prolongation of the stay were investigated.Results The proportion of inappropriate days was 24.61%. There is a high variability across specialties and hospitals. Regarding inappropriate days, the analysis of causes of prolongation, globally, by bed index or by hospital, indicated clearly internal and external factors that lengthen stays. The most frequent reasons are waits for an examination (22%) and the lack of extra-hospital structures (31%).Conclusions The use of AEP as a tool of internal audit to measure the proportion of non-justified days and their causes turns out to be possible and the obtained results has provided some accurate and useful information for the participating, and allowed them to take concrete decisions which lead to shrinking of the length of hospital stay.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:99:y:2011:i:1:p:66-71. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)or ()
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.