medigraphic.com

2003, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2003; 41 (4)

Work-Related Finger Fracture Costs: a Quality Assessment of the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social Medical Care Services

Chaín CTJ, García LH, Posnett JW

Language: English
References: 29
Page: 305-312
PDF size: 135.50 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: Our objective was to compare oppor-tunity of treatment and agreement in diagnosis in 54 workers who experienced work-related finger fracture (FF) with indemnified sequel (cases) with 45 without sequels (controls), and to compare costs of medical care and disability payment. Material and methods: Data sources/study settings were Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS) statistical records related to work accident-related injuries during 1995 in the states of Baja California Sur, Sonora, and Sinaloa in northwestern Mexico. Data collection/extraction methods, information from clinical files by means of description in initial medical record, record for qualifying probable work risk, and a statement of permanent work disability were used. Results: Main findings included that opportune medical care was provided in 76 % of cases and in 72 % of controls. Median days for patients receiving delayed care was 2 (range 1-69 days) for cases and 1 (range 1-19 days) for controls. Percentage and concordance coefficients for first-time medical care as well as for care provided by traumatologists were low and medium, respectively, according to Landis-Koch criteria. Total cost health care in Mexican pesos (M. N.) for cases was $877 482 M.N. and $190 751 M. N. for controls. Conclusions: Lack of opportunity for medical care could not be associated with appearance of sequelae, but low proportion of clinical diagnostic-therapeutic congruence revealed the influence of this factor in FF care quality. Moreover, health care costs in FF with no indemnified sequelae were definitely lower.


REFERENCES

  1. 1. Andraca SJ. The risks at work. Rev Med IMSS 1984;26:7-17.

  2. 2. Simpson NS, Jupiter JB. Complex fracture patterns of the upper extremity. Clin Orth 1995;318;43-53.

  3. 3. Pechlaner S. Fractures of the hand skeleton. Trer Umsch 1995;52(1):13-20.

  4. 4. Wamnske M. Complex hand injuries of the hand. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 1995;27(1):2-10.

  5. 5. Foucher G. Complex injuries of the hand. Rev Prat 1994;44(18):2469-2473.

  6. 6. Voche P, Merle M. Injuries of the flexor tendons of the hands. Rev Prat 1994;44(18):2423-2428.

  7. 7. Le Viet D. Fractures and luxations of the fingers. Rev Prat 1994;44(18):2434-2437.

  8. 8. Burgeess MM. Ethical and economics aspects of noncompliance and overtreatment. CMAJ 1995; 141:777-779.

  9. 9. Rubens AJ, Oleckno WA, Papeliou L. Establishing guidelines for the identification of occupational injuries: a systematic appraisal. J Occup Environ Med 1995;37(2):151-159.

  10. Treviño-García N. Modern glossary of health care. Rev Med IMSS 1994;32(Suppl 141):41.

  11. Varkevisser CM, Pathmanathan I, Brownlee A. Design and implementation of health systems’ research projects. Series of training on health systems research. Vol. II. Canada: International Research Centre for Development; 1995. p. 273-274.

  12. Gordon HG, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. User’s guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention, Are the results of the study valid? JAMA 1993;270(21):2598-2601.

  13. Duran IL. Determination of human resources based on the analysis of tasks. Health Med Educ 1987;21(2):145-153.

  14. Harris JS. Development, use, and evaluation of clinical practice guidelines J Occup Environ Med 1997;39(1):23-34.

  15. Fajardo-Gutiérrez A, Yamamoto-Kimura LT, Garduño-Espinoza J, Hernández-Hernández DM, Martínez-García MC. Consistencia y validez de una medición en la investigación clínica. Definición, evaluación y su interpretación. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex 1991;48(5):367-381.

  16. Harweth A. Rehabilitation of hand injured co-workers from the occupational medicine viewpoint exemplified by chassis and montage automobile industry. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 1997;29 (4):218-221.

  17. Steinberg F. The law of worker’s compensation as it applies to hand injuries. Occup Med 1989;4(3): 559-571.

  18. Al-Zahrani S, Ikram MA, Al-Qattan MM. Pre-disposing factors to industrial hand injuries in Saudi Arabia. J Hand Surg 1997;22(1):131-132.

  19. Cheng YH. Explaining disablement in modern times: hand-injured workers’ accounts of their injuries in Hong-Kong. Soc Sci Med 1997;45(5):739-750.

  20. Lowka K. Fractures of the mid-hand area-classifica-tion, management, results and problems. Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl II Verh Dtsch Ges Chir 1990. p. 713-720.

  21. Tate DG. Workers’ disability and return to work. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1992;71(2):92-96.

  22. Chase RA. Costs, risks and benefits of hand surgery. J Hand Surg 1983;8:644-648.

  23. Holmberg J, Lingren B, Jutemark R. Replantation-revascularization and primary amputation in major hand injuries. Resources spent on treatment and the indirect costs of sick leave in Sweden. J Hand Surg 1996;21(5):576-580.

  24. Johnson WG, Balwin ML, Burton JF. Why is the treatment of work-related injuries so costly? New evidence from California. Inquiry 1996;33(1):53-65.

  25. Pfeiffer KM. Advances in osteosynthesis of hand fractures. Handchirurgie 1976;8(1):17-22.

  26. Kasdan ML, June LA. Returning to work after a unilateral hand fracture. J Occup Med 1993;35(2): 132-135.

  27. Wong TW. Occupational injuries among construc-tion workers in Hong-Kong, Occup Med 1994;44 (5):247-252.

  28. Gibson DJ. Eugene W Caldwell Lecture. Technology: the key to controlling health care costs in the future. Am J Roentgenol 1994;163(6): 1289-1293.

  29. Absoud EM, Harrop SN. Hand injuries at work. J Hand Surg 1984; 9(2):211-215.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com