Factors Affecting Discharge Delay in Lumbar Spinal Surgery Patients Who were Treated according to a Critical Pathway

Jeoung Hee Kim; Eun Ha Lee; Su Ran Kim; Sung Reul Kim

doi:10.7469/kjan.2016.28.1.43

Journal List > Korean J Adult Nurs > v.28(1) > 1076409

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim, Lee, Kim, and Kim: Factors Affecting Discharge Delay in Lumbar Spinal Surgery Patients Who were Treated according to a Critical Pathway

Original Article

Korean J Adult Nurs 2016;28(1):43-52.

Published online: February 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7469/kjan.2016.28.1.43

Factors Affecting Discharge Delay in Lumbar Spinal Surgery Patients Who were Treated according to a Critical Pathway

Jeoung Hee Kim¹, Eun Ha Lee¹, Su Ran Kim¹, Sung Reul Kim^2,

^¹Department of Nursing, Asan Medical Center, Seoul

^²College of Nursing · Research Institute of Nursing Science, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Korea

Corresponding author: Kim, Sung Reul College of Nursing, Chonbuk National University, 567 Baekje-daero, Deokjin-gu, Jeonju 54899, Korea. Tel: +82-63-270-3118, Fax: +82-63-270-3127, E-mail: srkim@jbnu.ac.kr

Received 5 October 20152 February 2016 Accepted 4 February 2016

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to identify demographic, clinical, physical, and psychosocial factors affecting discharge delay in lumbar spinal surgery patients who were treated according to a critical pathway.

Methods

A sample of 170 patients with lumbar spinal surgery agreed to participate in the study, between April 1, 2014 and August 30, 2015. Data were analyzed by mean, standard deviation, t-test, x 2-test, ANCOVA, and logistic regression analysis using SPSS 22.0 program.

Results

Approximately fifty-nine percent of the participants was delayed discharge. On logistic regression analysis, female gender (OR=2.63, 95% CI=1.40~4.94), age (OR=1.03, 95% CI=1.01~1.05), spondylolisthesis (OR=4.49, 95% CI=1.90~10.61), and spinal fusion operation (OR=4.14, 95% CI=1.89~9.05) were significant factors predicting discharge delay of the participants. However, discharge delay was not related with pain, physical function, depression, or family support.

Conclusion

An analysis of discharge delay may assist in evaluating and revising critical pathway for optimal care. In addition, nurses need to understand the factors affecting discharge delay of the given population who were treated according to a critical pathway.

Keywords: Critical pathways, Patient discharge, Lumbar vertebrae

REFERENCES

1.Jun MH., Jung JY. A follow up study for elderly's disabilities in performing activities of daily life after lumbar spinal surgery. The Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education. 2010. 16(1):140–9.

2.Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. One out of every four was diagnosed with spinal disorders in 2014 [Internet]. Seoul: Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service;2015. [cited 2015 November 26]. Available from:. http://www.hira.or.kr/dummy.do?pgmid=HIRAA020041000000&cmsurl=/cms/inform/02/1343117_27116.html.

3.The Korean Neurosurgical Society. Neurosurgery. 3th ed. Seoul: Jung-Ang Munhwasa;2005.

4.Lee MJ., Kim EK., Kim H., Lee SM. Effects of a video exercise program for spinal surgery patients on pain, daily living function and educational satisfaction. Journal of Korean Clinical Nursing Research. 2009. 15(3):39–48.

5.Chung KH., Ko YS., Lim JA. Development of a critical pathway for patients with uterine artery embolization. Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. 2006. 12(4):316–25.

6.El Baz N., Middel B., van Dijk JP., Oosterhof A., Boonstra PW., Reijneveld SA. Are the outcomes of clinical pathways evidence-based? a critical appraisal of clinical pathway evaluation research. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2007. 13(6):920–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00774.x.

7.Segal O., Bellemans J., Van Gerven E., Deneckere S., Panella M., Sermeus W, et al. Important variations in the content of care pathway documents for total knee arthroplasty may lead to quality and patient safety problems. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2013. 19(1):11–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01760.x.

8.Yoo KW. Development of a critical pathway for the patients following spinal disc surgery (lamincetomy, diskectomy, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation). [master's thesis]. Kyungsan: Kyungsan University;2000.

9.Gruskay JA., Fu M., Bohl DD., Webb ML., Grauer JN. Factors affecting length of stay after elective posterior lumbar spine surgery: a multivariate analysis. The Spine Journal. 2015. 15(6):1188–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.10.022.

10.Kanaan SF., Waitman LR., Yeh HW., Arnold PM., Burton DC., Sharma NK. Structural equation model analysis of the length-of-hospital stay after lumbar spine surgery. The Spine Journal. 2015. 15(4):612–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2014.11.001.

11.Armaghani SJ., Lee DS., Bible JE., Shau DN., Kay H., Zhang C, et al. Increased preoperative narcotic use and its association with postoperative complications and length of hospital stay in patients undergoing spine surgery. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques. 2014. Forthcoming.http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000109.

12.Aljabi Y., El-Shawarby A., Cawley DT., Aherne T. Effect of epidural methylprednisolone on post-operative pain and length of hospital stay in patients undergoing lumbar microdiscec-tomy. The Surgeon. 2014. Forthcoming.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2014.03.012.

13.Kanaan SF., Yeh HW., Waitman RL., Burton DC., Arnold PM., Sharma NK. Predicting discharge placement and health care needs after lumbar spine laminectomy. Journal of Allied Health. 2014. 43(2):88–97.

14.Kripalani S., Jackson AT., Schnipper JL., Coleman EA. Promoting effective transitions of care at hospital discharge: a review of key issues for hospitalists. Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2007. 2(5):314–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jhm.228.

15.Carley JA., Karp JF., Gentili A., Marcum ZA., Reid MC., Rodriguez E, et al. Deconstructing chronic low back pain in the older adult: step by step evidence and expert-based recommendations for evaluation and treatment: part IV: depression. Pain Medicine. 2015. 16(11):2098–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pme.12935.

16.Wu JR., Song EK., Moser DK. Type D personality, self-efficacy, and medication adherence in patients with heart failure-a mediation analysis. Heart & Lung. 2015. 44(4):276–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2015.03.006.

17.Jung HJ., Choi M., Kim SS., Kim NG., Lee KY. The effects and variances of the critical pathway of laparoscopic colon resection in colon cancer patients. Asian Oncology Nursing. 2012. 12(3):204–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.5388/aon.2012.12.3.204.

18.Cheah J. Development and implementation of a clinical pathway programme in an acute care general hospital in Singapore. International Journal for Quality in Health Care: Journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care. 2000. 12(5):403–12.

19.Rotstein C., Evans G., Born A., Grossman R., Light RB., Magder S, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for hospital acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults. Canadian Journal of Infectious Disease Medicine & Microbiology. 2008. 19(1):),. 19–53.

20.Faul F., Erdfelder E., Buchner A., Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using GPower 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods. 2009. 41:1149–60.

21.Jeon CH., Kim DJ., Kim DJ., Lee HM., Park HJ. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Korean version of the oswestry disability index (ODI). Journal of Korean Society Spine Surgery. 2005. 12(2):146–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.4184/jkss.2005.12.2.146.

22.Farrar JT., Young JP Jr., LaMoreaux L., Werth JL., Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. 2001. 94(2):149–58.

23.Cho MJ., Kim KH. Diagnostic validity of the CES-D (Korean version) in the assessment of DSM-III-R major depression. Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatry Association. 1993. 32(3):381–99.

24.Lim HE., Lee MS., Ko YH., Park YM., Joe SH., Kim YK, et al. Assessment of the D type personality construct in the Korean population: a validation study of the Korean DS14. Journal of Korean Medical Science. 2011. 26:116–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2011.26.1.116.

25.Denollet J. DS14: standard assessment of negative affectivity, social inhibition, and type D personality. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2005. 67:89–97.

26.Kang HS. Experimental study of the effects of reinforcement education for rehabilitation on hemiplegia patients' self-care activities. [dissertation]. Seoul: Yonsei University;1984.

27.Park JJ., Park HS. Development of a critical pathway for patients with lumbar laminectomy. Korean Journal of Adult Nursing. 2000. 12(4):517–32.

28.Sung YH. Development of a Case Management model and its application (for the laminectomy patients). [dissertation]. Seoul: Chung-Ang University;2000.

29.McClendon J., Smith TR., Thompson SE., Sugrue PA., O'shaugh-nessy BA., Ondra SL, et al. The impact of body mass index on hospital stay and complications after spinal fusion. Neurosurgery. 2014. 74(1):42–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000195.

Table 1.

Comparison of Demographic and Clinical Characteristics Between the Planned Discharge Group and the Discharge Delay Group in Lumbar Spinal Surgery Patients Treated According to a Critical Pathway (N=170)

Variables	Categories	Total (n=170)	Planned discharge (n=69)	Discharge delay (n=101)	x2 or t	p
Variables	Categories	n (%) or M±SD	n (%) or M±SD	n (%) or M±SD	x2 or t	p
Gender	Male	82 (48.2)	43 (62.3)	39 (38.6)	9.23	.003
	Female	88 (51.8)	26 (37.7)	62 (61.4)	2.62	.010
		58.9±14.8	55.1±17.1	61.4±12.5
Age (year)	≤40	24 (14.1)
	41~50	21 (12.4)
	51~60	33 (19.4)
	61~70	50 (29.4)
	≥71	42 (24.7)
Marital status	Married	144 (84.7)	58 (84.1)	86 (85.1)	0.04	.832
Marital status	Not-married	26 (15.3)	11 (15.9)	15 (14.9)
Level of education (n=169)	≤Elementary school	39 (22.9)	13 (18.8)	26 (25.7)	3.96	.265
	Middle school	45 (26.5)	15 (21.7)	30 (29.7)
	High school	36 (21.2)	18 (26.2)	18 (17.9)
	≥College	49 (28.8)	23 (33.3)	26 (25.7)
Occupation	Yes	62 (36.5)	30 (43.5)	32 (31.7)	2.46	.117
Occupation	No	108 (63.5)	39 (56.5)	69 (68.3)
Religion	Yes	103 (60.6)	41 (59.4)	62 (61.4)	0.07	.873
Religion	No	67 (39.4)	28 (40.6)	39 (38.6)
Diagnosis	Herniated intervertebral disc	62 (36.5)	34 (49.3)	28 (27.7)	12.49	.002
	Lumbar stenosis	61 (35.9)	25 (36.2)	36 (35.6)
	Spondylolisthesis	47 (27.6)	10 (14.5)	37 (36.6)
Operation	Fusion	60 (35.3)	14 (20.3)	46 (45.5)	13.32	.001
	Laminectomy	49 (28.8)	21 (30.4)	28 (27.7)
	Discectomy	61 (35.9)	34 (49.3)	27 (26.7)
Motor dysfunction at admission	Yes	20 (11.8)	9 (13.0)	11 (10.9)	0.18	.809
Motor dysfunction at admission	No	150 (88.2)	60 (87.0)	90 (89.1)
Sensory dysfunction at admission	Yes	170 (100.0)
Sensory dysfunction at admission
Comorbidity	No	72 (42.4)	33 (47.8)	39 (38.6)	1.43	.233
	Yes	98 (57.6)	36 (52.2)	62 (61.4)
	Cardiovascular disease	75 (44.1)
	Endocrinologic disease	8 (4.7)
	Neurologic disease	4 (2.4)
	Urinary disease	4 (2.4)
	Others	7 (4.1)
Experience of admission	Yes	104 (61.2)	46 (66.7)	58 (57.4)	1.47	.225
Experience of admission	No	66 (38.8)	23 (33.3)	43 (42.6)
Experience of operation	Yes	101 (59.4)	44 (63.8)	57 (56.4)	0.91	.427
Experience of operation	No	69 (40.6)	25 (36.2)	44 (43.6)
Discharge delay				1.1±0.9
	Fusion			1.1±0.8
	Laminectomy			1.3±1.4
		Discectomy			0.8±1.1

Table 2.

Comparison of Physical and Psychosocial Characteristics Between the Planned Discharge Group and the Discharge Delay Group (N=170)

Variables	Categories	Total (n=170)	Planned discharge (n=69)	Discharge delay (n=101)	z or F	p
Variables	Categories	n (%) or M±SD	n (%) or M±SD	n (%) or M±SD	z or F	p
Physical characteristics	Physical function	50.6±16.5	48.5±16.5	52.0±16.3	0.82	.804^†
	Pain
	Pain score at admission	5.8±1.8	5.4±1.6	6.0±1.8	0.87	.594^†
	Mean pain score during	2.9±1.1	2.6±1.1	3.0±1.0	2.00	.051^‡
	hospitalization
	Worst pain score during	5.7±1.8	5.1±1.7	6.1±1.9	1.59	.106^‡
	hospitalization
	Pain score at discharge	1.4±1.0	1.2±0.9	1.5±1.0	1.51	.189^‡
Psychosocial characteristics	Depression	11.2±10.6	9.1±8.5	12.6±11.7	0.74	.878^†
	Type D personality
	Type D	38 (22.4)	14 (20.3)	20 (19.8)	0.29	.708
	Non-type D	132 (77.6)	55 (79.7)	68 (67.3)
	Family support	47.5±7.6	46.9±8.6	47.9±6.9	1.03	.435^†

^† Tested using ANCOVA (controlling gender, age, and diagnosis);

^‡ Tested using ANCOVA (controlling gender, age, diagnosis, and operation).

Table 3.

Logistic Analysis of Discharge Delay in Lumbar Spinal Surgery Patients Treated according to a Critical Pathway (N=170)

Variables	Categories	B	OR	95% CI	p
Gender	Female	0.97	2.63	1.40~4.94	.003
Gender	Male (reference)
Age		0.03	1.03	1.01~1.05	.008
Diagnosis	Herniated intervertebral disc (reference)
	Spinal stenosis	0.56	1.75	0.86~3.57	.125
	Spondylolisthesis	1.50	4.49	1.90~10.61	.001
Operation	Spinal fusion	1.42	4.14	1.89~9.05	＜.001
	Laminectomy	0.52	1.68	0.79~3.59	.181
	Discectomy (reference)

OR=odds ratio; CI=confidence interval.

TOOLS

Similar articles