Selected article for: "Charlson comorbidity index and income state index"
Author: Liu, Keh-Sen; Yu, Tsung-Fu; Wu, Hsing-Ju; Lin, Chun-Yi
Title: The impact of global budgeting in Taiwan on inpatients with unexplained fever
  • Document date: 2019_9_13
    • ID: 432t0q7w_22
    Snippet: The GB system did not have a significant impact on LOS (IRR = 1.27, P = .34). In addition, gender was not a significant predictor of LOS (IRR = 0.88, P = .64). There was a significantly positive correlation between age, Charlson comorbidity index, and LOS (IRR = 1.03, P = .01; IRR = 8.24, P < .001, respectively). There was no significant correlation between income state index and LOS (IRR = 0.95, P = .61). LOS did not differ significantly between.....
    Document: The GB system did not have a significant impact on LOS (IRR = 1.27, P = .34). In addition, gender was not a significant predictor of LOS (IRR = 0.88, P = .64). There was a significantly positive correlation between age, Charlson comorbidity index, and LOS (IRR = 1.03, P = .01; IRR = 8.24, P < .001, respectively). There was no significant correlation between income state index and LOS (IRR = 0.95, P = .61). LOS did not differ significantly between patients treated at medical centers and those treated at local hospitals (IRR = 1.08, P = .83). However, patients treated at regional hospitals had a significantly shorter LOS than those treated at medical centers (IRR = 0.54, P = .04). Compared with hospitals in Taipei (Table 3) .

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents
    • income state index and regional hospital: 1
    • income state index and significant correlation: 1, 2, 3, 4
    • income state index and significant impact: 1, 2
    • local hospital and medical center: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
    • local hospital and regional hospital: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
    • local hospital and significant correlation: 1, 2
    • local hospital and significant impact: 1, 2, 3, 4
    • local hospital treat and medical center: 1
    • LOS significant impact and significant impact: 1, 2
    • LOS significant predictor and significant predictor: 1, 2
    • medical center and regional hospital: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
    • medical center and significant correlation: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
    • medical center and significant impact: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
    • medical center and significant predictor: 1, 2, 3
    • medical center and significantly differ: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
    • regional hospital and significant correlation: 1
    • regional hospital and significant impact: 1, 2
    • regional hospital and significant predictor: 1, 2
    • regional hospital and significantly differ: 1, 2