Impacting cost and appropriateness of stress ulcer prophylaxis at a university medical center

Brian L Erstad, James M. Camamo, Michael J. Miller, Anthony M. Webber, John Fortune

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

45 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To determine the appropriateness and medication cost of stress ulcer prophylaxis before and after a targeted educational intervention. Design: In the preintervention cohort (phase 1), 264 patients were evaluated over 2 months, using stress ulcer prophylaxis guidelines developed by s comprehensive literature search. Targeted educational programs were subsequently used to inform trauma housestaff on appropriate usage of stress ulcer prophylaxis medications with emphasis on using sucralfate. The postintervention cohort (phase 2) involved concurrent evaluation of 279 patients. Length of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis (i.e., did not meet approved guidelines) between phases was com pared using a Student's t- test for independent samples (α = .05). Setting: A 365-bed university medical center. Patients: Patients admitted to any of the intensive care units and all patients who were placed on histamine-2-antagonists or sucralfate for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Interventions: Educational intervention regarding appropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis directed at the trauma service. Measurements and Main Results: Patient demographics in the two phases were similar and there was no difference in the number of patient risk factors for stress-induced bleeding. The mean length of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis was 5.78 ± 4.36 days in phase 1 and 4.66 ± 3.10 days in phase 2 (p < .05). Eighty-nine patients in phase 1 received inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis for a drug cost of $2,272.00 (mean $25.53 ± 25.52) compared with 90 patients in phase 2 with a drug cost of $1,417.00 (mean $15.75 ± 13.06). Three patients in each phase had clinically important bleeding (hemodynamic compromise or transfusion); all were receiving ranitidine. The mean total cost (fixed and variable) of hospitalization was $69,288.00 and $74,709.00 for the three patients who bled in each phase compared with $19,850.00 and $15,812.00 for all patients admitted to the intensive care unit in phases 1 and 2, respectively. The mean length of hospital stay was 30.00 days and 29.33 days for the three patients who bled in each phase compared with 11.54 days and 10.27 days for all patients admitted to the intensive care unit in phases 1 and 2, respectively. Conclusions: Cost savings are associated with more appropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis. Clinically important bleeding is uncommon but results in prolonged hospital stays and increased costs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1678-1684
Number of pages7
JournalCritical Care Medicine
Volume25
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - 1997

Fingerprint

Ulcer
Costs and Cost Analysis
Sucralfate
Intensive Care Units
Length of Stay
Drug Costs
Hemorrhage
Guidelines
Ranitidine
Cost Savings
Histamine Antagonists
Wounds and Injuries
Hospitalization
Hemodynamics
Demography
Students

Keywords

  • Cost
  • Education
  • Gastrointestinal hemorrhage
  • Prophylaxis
  • Ranitidine
  • Sucralfate

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Impacting cost and appropriateness of stress ulcer prophylaxis at a university medical center. / Erstad, Brian L; Camamo, James M.; Miller, Michael J.; Webber, Anthony M.; Fortune, John.

In: Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 25, No. 10, 1997, p. 1678-1684.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Erstad, Brian L ; Camamo, James M. ; Miller, Michael J. ; Webber, Anthony M. ; Fortune, John. / Impacting cost and appropriateness of stress ulcer prophylaxis at a university medical center. In: Critical Care Medicine. 1997 ; Vol. 25, No. 10. pp. 1678-1684.
@article{0a26f1e739c44d75a825d240c7d2f788,
title = "Impacting cost and appropriateness of stress ulcer prophylaxis at a university medical center",
abstract = "Objective: To determine the appropriateness and medication cost of stress ulcer prophylaxis before and after a targeted educational intervention. Design: In the preintervention cohort (phase 1), 264 patients were evaluated over 2 months, using stress ulcer prophylaxis guidelines developed by s comprehensive literature search. Targeted educational programs were subsequently used to inform trauma housestaff on appropriate usage of stress ulcer prophylaxis medications with emphasis on using sucralfate. The postintervention cohort (phase 2) involved concurrent evaluation of 279 patients. Length of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis (i.e., did not meet approved guidelines) between phases was com pared using a Student's t- test for independent samples (α = .05). Setting: A 365-bed university medical center. Patients: Patients admitted to any of the intensive care units and all patients who were placed on histamine-2-antagonists or sucralfate for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Interventions: Educational intervention regarding appropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis directed at the trauma service. Measurements and Main Results: Patient demographics in the two phases were similar and there was no difference in the number of patient risk factors for stress-induced bleeding. The mean length of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis was 5.78 ± 4.36 days in phase 1 and 4.66 ± 3.10 days in phase 2 (p < .05). Eighty-nine patients in phase 1 received inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis for a drug cost of $2,272.00 (mean $25.53 ± 25.52) compared with 90 patients in phase 2 with a drug cost of $1,417.00 (mean $15.75 ± 13.06). Three patients in each phase had clinically important bleeding (hemodynamic compromise or transfusion); all were receiving ranitidine. The mean total cost (fixed and variable) of hospitalization was $69,288.00 and $74,709.00 for the three patients who bled in each phase compared with $19,850.00 and $15,812.00 for all patients admitted to the intensive care unit in phases 1 and 2, respectively. The mean length of hospital stay was 30.00 days and 29.33 days for the three patients who bled in each phase compared with 11.54 days and 10.27 days for all patients admitted to the intensive care unit in phases 1 and 2, respectively. Conclusions: Cost savings are associated with more appropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis. Clinically important bleeding is uncommon but results in prolonged hospital stays and increased costs.",
keywords = "Cost, Education, Gastrointestinal hemorrhage, Prophylaxis, Ranitidine, Sucralfate",
author = "Erstad, {Brian L} and Camamo, {James M.} and Miller, {Michael J.} and Webber, {Anthony M.} and John Fortune",
year = "1997",
doi = "10.1097/00003246-199710000-00017",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "1678--1684",
journal = "Critical Care Medicine",
issn = "0090-3493",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Impacting cost and appropriateness of stress ulcer prophylaxis at a university medical center

AU - Erstad, Brian L

AU - Camamo, James M.

AU - Miller, Michael J.

AU - Webber, Anthony M.

AU - Fortune, John

PY - 1997

Y1 - 1997

N2 - Objective: To determine the appropriateness and medication cost of stress ulcer prophylaxis before and after a targeted educational intervention. Design: In the preintervention cohort (phase 1), 264 patients were evaluated over 2 months, using stress ulcer prophylaxis guidelines developed by s comprehensive literature search. Targeted educational programs were subsequently used to inform trauma housestaff on appropriate usage of stress ulcer prophylaxis medications with emphasis on using sucralfate. The postintervention cohort (phase 2) involved concurrent evaluation of 279 patients. Length of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis (i.e., did not meet approved guidelines) between phases was com pared using a Student's t- test for independent samples (α = .05). Setting: A 365-bed university medical center. Patients: Patients admitted to any of the intensive care units and all patients who were placed on histamine-2-antagonists or sucralfate for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Interventions: Educational intervention regarding appropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis directed at the trauma service. Measurements and Main Results: Patient demographics in the two phases were similar and there was no difference in the number of patient risk factors for stress-induced bleeding. The mean length of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis was 5.78 ± 4.36 days in phase 1 and 4.66 ± 3.10 days in phase 2 (p < .05). Eighty-nine patients in phase 1 received inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis for a drug cost of $2,272.00 (mean $25.53 ± 25.52) compared with 90 patients in phase 2 with a drug cost of $1,417.00 (mean $15.75 ± 13.06). Three patients in each phase had clinically important bleeding (hemodynamic compromise or transfusion); all were receiving ranitidine. The mean total cost (fixed and variable) of hospitalization was $69,288.00 and $74,709.00 for the three patients who bled in each phase compared with $19,850.00 and $15,812.00 for all patients admitted to the intensive care unit in phases 1 and 2, respectively. The mean length of hospital stay was 30.00 days and 29.33 days for the three patients who bled in each phase compared with 11.54 days and 10.27 days for all patients admitted to the intensive care unit in phases 1 and 2, respectively. Conclusions: Cost savings are associated with more appropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis. Clinically important bleeding is uncommon but results in prolonged hospital stays and increased costs.

AB - Objective: To determine the appropriateness and medication cost of stress ulcer prophylaxis before and after a targeted educational intervention. Design: In the preintervention cohort (phase 1), 264 patients were evaluated over 2 months, using stress ulcer prophylaxis guidelines developed by s comprehensive literature search. Targeted educational programs were subsequently used to inform trauma housestaff on appropriate usage of stress ulcer prophylaxis medications with emphasis on using sucralfate. The postintervention cohort (phase 2) involved concurrent evaluation of 279 patients. Length of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis (i.e., did not meet approved guidelines) between phases was com pared using a Student's t- test for independent samples (α = .05). Setting: A 365-bed university medical center. Patients: Patients admitted to any of the intensive care units and all patients who were placed on histamine-2-antagonists or sucralfate for stress ulcer prophylaxis. Interventions: Educational intervention regarding appropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis directed at the trauma service. Measurements and Main Results: Patient demographics in the two phases were similar and there was no difference in the number of patient risk factors for stress-induced bleeding. The mean length of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis was 5.78 ± 4.36 days in phase 1 and 4.66 ± 3.10 days in phase 2 (p < .05). Eighty-nine patients in phase 1 received inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis for a drug cost of $2,272.00 (mean $25.53 ± 25.52) compared with 90 patients in phase 2 with a drug cost of $1,417.00 (mean $15.75 ± 13.06). Three patients in each phase had clinically important bleeding (hemodynamic compromise or transfusion); all were receiving ranitidine. The mean total cost (fixed and variable) of hospitalization was $69,288.00 and $74,709.00 for the three patients who bled in each phase compared with $19,850.00 and $15,812.00 for all patients admitted to the intensive care unit in phases 1 and 2, respectively. The mean length of hospital stay was 30.00 days and 29.33 days for the three patients who bled in each phase compared with 11.54 days and 10.27 days for all patients admitted to the intensive care unit in phases 1 and 2, respectively. Conclusions: Cost savings are associated with more appropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis. Clinically important bleeding is uncommon but results in prolonged hospital stays and increased costs.

KW - Cost

KW - Education

KW - Gastrointestinal hemorrhage

KW - Prophylaxis

KW - Ranitidine

KW - Sucralfate

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030770705&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030770705&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00003246-199710000-00017

DO - 10.1097/00003246-199710000-00017

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 1678

EP - 1684

JO - Critical Care Medicine

JF - Critical Care Medicine

SN - 0090-3493

IS - 10

ER -