| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3223472 | The American Journal of Emergency Medicine | 2013 | 5 Pages |
ObjectiveTo compare efficiency and cost-effectiveness of an observation unit (OU) when managed as a closed unit vs an open unit.MethodsThis observational, retrospective study of a 30-bed OU compared three time periods: Nov 2007 to Aug 2008 (period 1), Nov 2008 to Aug 2009 (period 2) and Nov 2010 to Aug 2011 (period 3). The OU was managed and staffed by non–emergency department physicians as an open unit during period 1, and a closed unit by emergency department physicians during periods 2 and 3.ResultsOU volume was greatest in period 3 (1 vs 3, 95% CI − 235.8 to − 127.9; 2 vs 3, 95% CI − 191.9 to − 84.095%). Periods 2 and 3 had shorter lengths of stay for discharged (1 vs 2, 95% CI − 6.6 to 1.7; 1 vs 3, 95% CI − 8.1 to − 3.1) and admitted (1 vs 2, 95% CI − 11.4 to − 8.6; 1 vs 3, 95% CI − 11.8 to − 9.0) patients, less admission rates (P < .001), and less 30-day all cause admission rates after discharge (P < .0001). Cost was less during periods 2 and 3 for direct (1 vs 2, 95% CI − 392.5 to − 305.9; 1 vs 3, 95% CI − 471.4 to − 388.4), indirect (1 vs 2, 95% CI − 249.5 to - 199.8; 1 vs 3, 95% CI − 187 to−139.4) and total cost (1 vs 2, 95% CI − 640.7 to − 507; 1 vs 3, 95% CI − 657.2 to − 529).ConclusionThe same OU was more efficient and cost-effective when managed as a closed unit vs an open unit.
