The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created a designation for critical access hospitals(CAHs)to sustain care for people living in rural communities who lacked access to care due to hospital closures over the preceding dec...The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created a designation for critical access hospitals(CAHs)to sustain care for people living in rural communities who lacked access to care due to hospital closures over the preceding decade.Twenty-five years later,1350 CAHs serve approximately 18% of the US population and a systematic policy evaluation has yet to be performed.This policy analysis serves to define challenges faced by CAHs through a literature review addressing the four major categories of payment,quality,access to capital,and workforce.Additionally,this analysis describes how current challenges to maintain sustainability of CAHs over time are accentuated by gaps in public health infrastructure and variability in individual health care plans exhibited during the COVID-19 pandemic.展开更多
Objective To compare the efficacy of Ranitidine and Pantoprazole for the prevention of haemorrhage from stress ulcer among critical care patients. Methods A total of 121 critically ill patients were included in this r...Objective To compare the efficacy of Ranitidine and Pantoprazole for the prevention of haemorrhage from stress ulcer among critical care patients. Methods A total of 121 critically ill patients were included in this retrospective study. The choice of pharmacologic stress ulcer prophylaxis were either Ranitidine or Pantoprazole. The primary outcome was the incidence of stress-related significant upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and the secondary outcome was the incidence of hospital acquired pneumonia (HAP). Results A total of 63 patients were given Ranitidine, and 58 patients were given Pantoprazole for stress ulcer bleeding prophylaxis. Nine patients (7.44%, 9/121) developed clinically-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding, including 5 (7.94%, 5/63) in the Ranitidine group, and 4 (6.90%,4/58) in the Pantoprazole group. The rate of HAP was 3.17% (2/63) in the Ranitidine group, and 15.52% (9/58) in the Pantoprazole group. Conclusion Ranitidine was associated with lower rates of HAP as compared with Pantoprazole, with no statistically significant difference in clinically-important gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Because of limited trial data, future well-designed and powerful randomized, clinical trials are warranted.展开更多
文摘The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created a designation for critical access hospitals(CAHs)to sustain care for people living in rural communities who lacked access to care due to hospital closures over the preceding decade.Twenty-five years later,1350 CAHs serve approximately 18% of the US population and a systematic policy evaluation has yet to be performed.This policy analysis serves to define challenges faced by CAHs through a literature review addressing the four major categories of payment,quality,access to capital,and workforce.Additionally,this analysis describes how current challenges to maintain sustainability of CAHs over time are accentuated by gaps in public health infrastructure and variability in individual health care plans exhibited during the COVID-19 pandemic.
文摘Objective To compare the efficacy of Ranitidine and Pantoprazole for the prevention of haemorrhage from stress ulcer among critical care patients. Methods A total of 121 critically ill patients were included in this retrospective study. The choice of pharmacologic stress ulcer prophylaxis were either Ranitidine or Pantoprazole. The primary outcome was the incidence of stress-related significant upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and the secondary outcome was the incidence of hospital acquired pneumonia (HAP). Results A total of 63 patients were given Ranitidine, and 58 patients were given Pantoprazole for stress ulcer bleeding prophylaxis. Nine patients (7.44%, 9/121) developed clinically-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding, including 5 (7.94%, 5/63) in the Ranitidine group, and 4 (6.90%,4/58) in the Pantoprazole group. The rate of HAP was 3.17% (2/63) in the Ranitidine group, and 15.52% (9/58) in the Pantoprazole group. Conclusion Ranitidine was associated with lower rates of HAP as compared with Pantoprazole, with no statistically significant difference in clinically-important gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Because of limited trial data, future well-designed and powerful randomized, clinical trials are warranted.
