Specifics of follow-up observation regarding two diseases

Aim. To study the specifics of addressing for medical care among patients under follow-up observation regarding two diseases.

Materials and methods. The data, obtained from ambulatory medical records of 159 patients under follow-up observation for two diseases, were analyzed using the methods of descriptive and inductive statistics.

Results. From among patients, who were under follow-up observation concerning two diseases, there were more women (58.5 %) and pensioners (95.5 %). A mean age was 68,1 ± 11,6 years. The most frequent cause of observation regarding the first disease are the diseases of cardiovascular system (71.7 %), the second – the diseases of endocrine system (52.8 %). A mean duration of the first disease, as the cause of follow-up observation, was 10.8 ± 6.9, the second – 9.9 ± 8.2 years. There is no statistically significant difference between mean duration of disease among pensioners and able-bodied persons (the first disease t = –0.6 p = 0.5; the second disease t = –0.9, p = 0.4). There is no correlation between age and duration of disease: the first disease (χ2 = 0.04, р = 0.8) and the second (χ2 = 0.08, р = 0.6). There is statistically significant difference between mean duration and follow-up observation time of the first disease t = 5.4, р ˂ 0.0001 and the second t = 2.6, р = 0.012. There is statistically significant difference between the number of planned and real visits for the first disease t = 3.5, р = 0.001. Exacerbations were registered in 94.3 %, concomitant diseases – in 90.6 %, emergency calls – in 71.7 %, hospitalization – in 60.4 %, urgent hospitalization – in 36.7 %.

Conclusions. In the group of patients under follow-up observation regarding two diseases, there prevail persons of pension age; the main cause of follow-up observation is the diseases of cardiovascular system; profile specialists were randomly addressed to; the basic way of disease detection is follow-up observation; the disease duration, but not the age influence the severity of status; untimely start of observation and unsatisfactory quality of follow-up was revealed; loyalty to treatment depends on individual motivation of patients; follow-up, conducted by narrow specialists, is not more effective, than that by therapeutists.