英语翻译One could argue that the reported results are not indica

英语翻译
One could argue that the reported results are not indications of differences in length of stay and bed-blocking per se,
but rather reflect differences in treatment regimes between Hospital F and Hospital NF not accounted for in our analysis.
However,we believe our results tell a different story.Most importantly,for a sub-sample of patients we use hospital length
of stay above the ready-for-discharge date – which should not be affected by different treatment regimes – as the dependent
variable in the analysis,and this only strengthens our results.Furthermore,if different treatment regimes explain differences
in length of stay,we would expect different length of stay for patients of all ages.As can be seen in Table A.2 in Appendix,
where we estimate the same econometric model on different age groups of patients,this is not the case.11 This analysis
shows that there are no significant differences in length of stay between the two hospitals for patients younger than 40
years of age who move from Hospital NF to Hospital F.Neither do we find a significant change in length of stay for patients
between 40 and 67.The reason behind these results is most likely that patients younger than 67 years of age are less likely
to be in need of long-term care after hospitalisation.Henceforth,the estimation results for patients 67 years and over are quite robust in the sense that they are less likely to be attributed to differences in treatment practice than to differences in
the way the two hospitals deal with bed-blocking.

人们可以争辩说,该报告的结果是不是在住院天数的差异和床阻塞本身的迹象,
而是体现在我们的分析,不占医院F和医院因子之间的差异,在治疗方案.
然而,我们相信我们的研究结果告诉一个不同的故事.最重要的是,我们的子样本的患者住院时间
留以上准备出院日期 - 依赖 - 这不应该受到不同的待遇制度的影响
变量的分析,这只会加强我们的结果.此外,如果不同的治疗方案解释的差异
逗留时间,我们希望为所有年龄段的患者不同长度的逗留.附录A.2表中可以看出,
我们估计相同的计量模型,对不同年龄组的患者,这是不是case.11这种分析
显示,有两所医院之间的差异,年龄低于40岁的患者在住院天数无显着
岁年龄的人从医院NF移动医院楼,我们也没有发现患者在住院天数显着的变化
40和67之间.这些结果背后的原因是最有可能的,患者年龄小于67岁,是不太可能的
在住院后需要长期护理.此后,患者67岁及以上的估计结果是相当稳健,在这个意义上,他们是不太可能的差异归因于治疗实践中的分歧
两家医院床阻塞的处理方式