方法：以我院2012-01/12因患白内障在我院行手术治疗进入临床路径的200例200眼为临床路径组，以2010-12/2011-12因同样疾病治疗未采用临床路径的200例200眼为对照组。以两组患者平均住院日、术前平均住院日、平均住院费用(不包括人工晶状体费用)、药费、检查费、治愈率、患者满意度、医务人员满意度、再住院率等作为评价指标，进行对比分析。

结果：临床路径组平均住院日6.01±0.13d，术前平均住院日1.02±0.15d，平均住院费用(除人工晶状体之外)4 401.23±129.07元，药费720.35±23.21元，检查费700.37±46.25元，患者满意度96.4%； 对照组平均住院日10.21±0.05d，术前平均住院日2.20±0.07d，平均住院费用4 827.43±132.13元，药费1 206.21±53.64元，检查费850.35±24.26元，患者满意度93.1%，两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。临床路径组治愈率为97.2%，对照组治愈率为96.2%，两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。临床路径组医务人员满意度为98.2%； 对照组医务人员满意度为96.4%，两组比较无统计学差异(P>0.05)。临床路径组患者再住院率为1%； 对照组患者再住院率为0.9%，两组比较无统计学差异(P>0.05)。

结论：实施白内障临床路径不会降低医疗质量，相反规范了医疗行为，提高了患者满意度，降低了医疗成本，缓解了紧张的医患关系，为实现医疗预付费制度提供了理论依据。

METHODS:Two hundred eyes(200 eyes)of two hundred patients who suffered cataract from January 2012 to December 2012 were treated with ultrasound emulsification and intraocular lens planting by managing with clinical path. They are considered as clinical pathway group. The control group was another 200 patients(200 eyes)from December 2010 to December 2011 who suffered the same disease and treated with the same surgery not by managing with clinical path. The average length of stay, preoperative average length of stay, average cost of hospitalization(except the cost of IOL), drug cost, inspection fee, curative effect, degree of satisfaction of patients and medical staff, and readmission rate were analyzed.

RESULTS:In the clinical pathway group, the average length of stay was 6.01±0.13d, the preoperative average length of stay was 1.02±0.15d, the average cost of hospitalization was 4401.23± 129.07 Yuan, drug cost was 720.35±23.21 Yuan, inspection fee was 700.37±46.25 Yuan, and patient satisfaction was 96.4%. In the control group, the average length of stay was 10.21±0.05d, the preoperative average length of stay was 2.20±0.07d, average hospitalization cost was 4827.43±132.13 Yuan, drug cost was 1206.21±53.64 Yuan, inspection fee was 850.35±24.26 Yuan, and patient satisfaction was 93.1%. The difference between the two groups was significant(P<0.05). The cure rate was 97.2% in the clinical pathway group and 96.2% in the control group. The difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05). Satisfaction of the medical staff was 98.2% in the clinical pathway group and 96.4% in the control group, with no statistically significant difference(P>0.05). Clinical pathway group and control group had a readmission rate of 1% and 0.9%, with no statistically significant difference(P>0.05).

CONCLUSION: Implementation of clinical pathway on cataract patients will not reduce the quality of medical care. On the contrary, it will standardize the medical behavior, improve patient satisfaction, and reduce health care costs, and ease the tension in the doctor-patient relationship, and provide a theoretical basis for the realization of the medical system of prepaid.