Factors That Influence Length of Stay for In-Patient Gynaecology Surgery: Is The Case Mix Group (CMG) or Type of Procedure More Important?

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 149-155

  Carey, Mark S ^a,b   Victory, Rahi ^a   Stitt, Larry ^a   Tsang, Nicole ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Case mix groups; Gynaecology surgery; Length of stay

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL SURGERY; ADULT; AGE; AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANESTHESIOLOGISTS SCORE; ARTICLE; BODY WEIGHT; CASE MIX; CYTOREDUCTIVE SURGERY; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGIC SURGERY; GYNECOLOGIST; HOSPITAL UTILIZATION; HUMAN; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; LENGTH OF STAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; ONCOLOGIST; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; SCORING SYSTEM; VAGINAL SURGERY; ANESTHETIC RECOVERY; CANADA; CLASSIFICATION; DIAGNOSIS RELATED GROUP; GYNECOLOGIC DISEASE; HOSPITAL DEPARTMENT; MEDICAL AUDIT; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PHYSIOLOGY; STANDARD; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; TIME; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

AGE FACTORS; ANESTHESIA RECOVERY PERIOD; BODY WEIGHT; CANADA; CURRENT PROCEDURAL TERMINOLOGY; DIAGNOSIS-RELATED GROUPS; FEMALE; GENITAL DISEASES, FEMALE; GYNECOLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; HUMANS; LENGTH OF STAY; LINEAR MODELS; MEDICAL AUDIT; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY DEPARTMENT, HOSPITAL; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 33745927134     PISSN: 17012163     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)32057-6     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Canadian Institute for Health Information Acute care grouping methodologies: from diagnosis related groups to case mix groups redevelopment 2004, Available at:, Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa, Accessed: August 2005. http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cwpage=GR1108E.
2. Johnson L.M., Richards J., Pink G.H., Campbell L. Case mix tools for decision making in health care 1998, Available at:, Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa, Accessed, August 2005. http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cwpage=GR1264E.
3. Victory R., Carey M.S., Stitt L. Predictors of length of stay for inpatients having benign gynaecological surgery. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2005, 27:43-50.
4. Miskry T., Magos A. Randomized, prospective, double-blind comparison of abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy in women without uterovaginal prolapse. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003, 82:351-358.
5. Chapron C., Fernandez B., Dubuisson J.B. Total hysterectomy for benign pathologies: direct costs comparison between laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2000, 89:141-147.
6. Johnson N., Barlow D., Lethaby A., Tavender E., Curr L., Garry R. Methods of hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2005, 330:1478.
7. Ontario Hospital Report 2005. Ontario Hospital Association, Ontario Ministry of Health; 2005. Available at: . Accessed, August 2005. http://www.oha.com/client/oha/oha_lp4w_lnd_webstation.nsf/page/Hospital+Report+2005+Acute+Care.
8. Ontario Guide to Case Costing. Ontario Hospital Association, Ontario Ministry of Health; 2005. Available at: Accessed, August 2005. http://www.occp.com/guide/o_guide.htm.
9. Ontario Case Costing Initiative [homepage] . Accessed, August 2005. http://www.occp.com.
10. Hidlebaugh D., O'Mara P., Conboy E. Clinical and financial analyses of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1994, 1:357-3561.
11. Hegazy M.A., Hegazi R.A., Elshafei M.A., Setit A.E., Elshamy M.R., Eltatoongy M., et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus primary surgery in advanced ovarian carcinoma. World J Surg Oncol 2005, 3:57.