Pediatric appendicitis rupture rate: a national indicator of disparities in healthcare access

BACKGROUND: The U.S. National Healthcare Disparities Report is a recent effort to measure and monitor racial and ethnic disparities in health and healthcare. The Report is a work in progress and includes few indicators specific to children. An indicator worthy of consideration is racial/ethnic differences in the rate of bad outcomes for pediatric acute appendicitis. Bad outcomes for this condition are indicative of poor access to healthcare, which is amenable to social and healthcare policy changes. METHODS: We analyzed the KID Inpatient Database, a nationally representative sample of pediatric hospitalization, to compare rates of appendicitis rupture between white, African American, Hispanic and Asian children. We ran weighted logistic regression models to obtain national estimates of relative odds of rupture rate for the four groups, adjusted for developmental, biological, socioeconomic, health services and hospital factors that might influence disease outcome. RESULTS: Rupture was a much more burdensome outcome than timely surgery and rupture avoidance. Rupture cases had 97% higher hospital charges and 175% longer hospital stays than non-rupture cases on average. These burdens disproportionately affected minority children, who had 24% – 38% higher odds of appendicitis rupture than white children, adjusting for age and gender. These differences were reduced, but remained significant after adjusting for other factors. CONCLUSION: The racial/ethnic disparities in pediatric appendicitis outcome are large and are preventable with timely diagnosis and surgery for all children. Furthermore, estimating this disparity using the KID survey is a relatively straightforward process. Therefore pediatric appendicitis rupture rate is a good candidate for inclusion in the National Healthcare Disparities Report. As with most other health and healthcare disparities, efforts to reduce disparities in income, wealth and access to care will most likely improve the odds of favorable outcome for this condition as well

Consumer perceptions of safety in hospitals

BACKGROUND: Studies investigating adverse events have traditionally been principally undertaken from a medical perspective. The impact that experience of an adverse event has on consumer confidence in health care is largely unknown. The objectives of the study were to seek public opinion on 1) the rate and severity of adverse events experienced in hospitals; and 2) the perception of safety in hospitals, so that predictors of lack of safety could be identified. METHODS: A multistage, clustered survey of persons residing in South Australia (2001), using household interviews (weighted n = 2,884). RESULTS: A total of 67% of respondents aged over forty years reported having at least one member of their household hospitalised in the past five years; with the average being two hospital admissions in five years. Respondents stated that 7.0% (95%CI: 6.2% to 7.9%) of those hospital admissions were associated with an adverse event; 59.7% of respondents (95% CI: 51.4% to 67.5%) rated the adverse event as really serious and 48.5% (95% CI: 40.4% to 56.8%) stated prolonged hospitalisation was required as a consequence of the adverse event. Perception of safety in hospitals was largely affected by the experience of an adverse event; really serious events were the most significant predictor of lack of safety in those aged 40 years and over (RR 2.38; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The experience of adverse events negatively impacted on public confidence in hospitals. The consumer-reported adverse event rate in hospitals (7.0%) is similar to that identified using medical record review. Based on estimates from other studies, self-reported claims of adverse events in hospital by consumers appear credible, and should be considered when developing appropriate treatment regimes

Association between community health center and rural health clinic presence and county-level hospitalization rates for ambulatory care sensitive conditions: an analysis across eight US states

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Federally qualified community health centers (CHCs) and rural health clinics (RHCs) are intended to provide access to care for vulnerable populations. While some research has explored the effects of CHCs on population health, little information exists regarding RHC effects. We sought to clarify the contribution that CHCs and RHCs may make to the accessibility of primary health care, as measured by county-level rates of hospitalization for ambulatory care sensitive (ACS) conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted an ecologic analysis of the relationship between facility presence and county-level hospitalization rates, using 2002 discharge data from eight states within the US (579 counties). Counties were categorized by facility availability: CHC(s) only, RHC(s) only, both (CHC and RHC), and neither. US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality definitions were used to identify ACS diagnoses. Discharge rates were based on the individual's county of residence and were obtained by dividing ACS hospitalizations by the relevant county population. We calculated ACS rates separately for children, working age adults, and older individuals, and for uninsured children and working age adults. To ensure stable rates, we excluded counties having fewer than 1,000 residents in the child or working age adult categories, or 500 residents among those 65 and older. Multivariate Poisson analysis was used to calculate adjusted rate ratios.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Among working age adults, rate ratio (RR) comparing ACS hospitalization rates for CHC-only counties to those of counties with neither facility was 0.86 (95% Confidence Interval, CI, 0.78–0.95). Among older adults, the rate ratio for CHC-only counties compared to counties with neither facility was 0.84 (CI 0.81–0.87); for counties with both CHC and RHC present, the RR was 0.88 (CI 0.84–0.92). No CHC/RHC effects were found for children. No effects were found on estimated hospitalization rates among uninsured populations.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our results suggest that CHCs and RHCs may play a useful role in providing access to primary health care. Their presence in a county may help to limit the county's rate of hospitalization for ACS diagnoses, particularly among older people.</p

In-hospital mortality after stomach cancer surgery in Spain and relationship with hospital volume of interventions

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is no consensus about the possible relation between in-hospital mortality in surgery for gastric cancer and the hospital annual volume of interventions. The objectives were to identify factors associated to greater in-hospital mortality for surgery in gastric cancer and to analyze the possible independent relation between hospital annual volume and in-hospital mortality.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients discharged after surgery for stomach cancer during 2001–2002 in four regions of Spain using the Minimum Basic Data Set for Hospital Discharges. The overall and specific in-hospital mortality rates were estimated according to patient and hospital characteristics. We adjusted a logistic regression model in order to calculate the in-hospital mortality according to hospital volume.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were 3241 discharges in 144 hospitals. In-hospital mortality was 10.3% (95% CI 9.3–11.4). A statistically significant relation was observed among age, type of admission, volume, and mortality, as well as diverse secondary diagnoses or the type of intervention. Hospital annual volume was associated to Charlson score, type of admission, region, length of stay and number of secondary diagnoses registered at discharge. In the adjusted model, increased age and urgent admission were associated to increased in-hospital mortality. Likewise, partial gastrectomy (Billroth I and II) and simple excision of lymphatic structure were associated with a lower probability of in-hospital mortality. No independent association was found between hospital volume and in-hospital mortality</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Despite the limitations of our study, our results corroborate the existence of patient, clinical, and intervention factors associated to greater hospital mortality, although we found no clear association between the volume of cases treated at a centre and hospital mortality.</p

Non-hispanic whites have higher risk for pulmonary impairment from pulmonary tuberculosis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Disparities in outcomes associated with race and ethnicity are well documented for many diseases and patient populations. Tuberculosis (TB) disproportionately affects economically disadvantaged, racial and ethnic minority populations. Pulmonary impairment after tuberculosis (PIAT) contributes heavily to the societal burden of TB. Individual impacts associated with PIAT may vary by race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We analyzed the pulmonary function of 320 prospectively identified patients with pulmonary tuberculosis who had completed at least 20 weeks standard anti-TB regimes by directly observed therapy. We compared frequency and severity of spirometry-defined PIAT in groups stratified by demographics, pulmonary risk factors, and race/ethnicity, and examined clinical correlates to pulmonary function deficits.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Pulmonary impairment after tuberculosis was identified in 71% of non-Hispanic Whites, 58% of non-Hispanic Blacks, 49% of Asians and 32% of Hispanics (<it>p </it>< 0.001). Predictors for PIAT varied between race/ethnicity. PIAT was evenly distributed across all levels of socioeconomic status suggesting that PIAT and socioeconomic status are not related. PIAT and its severity were significantly associated with abnormal chest x-ray, <it>p </it>< 0.0001. There was no association between race/ethnicity and time to beginning TB treatment, <it>p </it>= 0.978.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Despite controlling for cigarette smoking, socioeconomic status and time to beginning TB treatment, non-Hispanic White race/ethnicity remained an independent predictor for disproportionately frequent and severe pulmonary impairment after tuberculosis relative to other race/ethnic groups. Since race/ethnicity was self reported and that race is not a biological construct: these findings must be interpreted with caution. However, because race/ethnicity is a proxy for several other unmeasured host, pathogen or environment factors that may contribute to disparate health outcomes, these results are meant to suggest hypotheses for further research.</p

The importance of examining movements within the US health care system: sequential logit modeling

Background: Utilization of specialty care may not be a discrete, isolated behavior but rather, a behavior of sequential movements within the health care system. Although patients may often visit their primary care physician and receive a referral before utilizing specialty care, prior studies have underestimated the importance of accounting for these sequential movements. Methods: The sample included 6,772 adults aged 18 years and older who participated in the 2001 Survey on Disparities in Quality of Care, sponsored by the Commonwealth Fund. A sequential logit model was used to account for movement in all stages of utilization: use of any health services (i.e., first stage), having a perceived need for specialty care (i.e., second stage), and utilization of specialty care (i.e., third stage). In the sequential logit model, all stages are nested within the previous stage. Results: Gender, race/ethnicity, education and poor health had significant explanatory effects with regard to use of any health services and having a perceived need for specialty care, however racial/ethnic, gender, and educational disparities were not present in utilization of specialty care. After controlling for use of any health services and having a perceived need for specialty care, inability to pay for specialty care via income (AOR = 1.334, CI = 1.10 to 1.62) or health insurance (unstable insurance: AOR = 0.26, CI = 0.14 to 0.48; no insurance: AOR = 0.12, CI = 0.07 to 0.20) were significant barriers to utilization of specialty care. Conclusions: Use of a sequential logit model to examine utilization of specialty care resulted in a detailed representation of utilization behaviors and patient characteristics that impact these behaviors at all stages within the health care system. After controlling for sequential movements within the health care system, the biggest barrier to utilizing specialty care is the inability to pay, while racial, gender, and educational disparities diminish to non-significance. Findings from this study represent how Americans use the health care system and more precisely reveals the disparities and inequalities in the U.S. health care system

What do family physicians consider an error? A comparison of definitions and physician perception

BACKGROUND: Physicians are being asked to report errors from primary care, but little is known about how they apply the term "error." This study qualitatively assesses the relationship between the variety of error definitions found in the medical literature and physicians' assessments of whether an error occurred in a series of clinical scenarios. METHODS: A systematic literature review and pilot survey results were analyzed qualitatively to search for insights into what may affect the use of the term error. The National Library of Medicine was systematically searched for medical error definitions. Survey participants were a random sample of active members of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and a selected sample of family physician patient safety "experts." A survey consisting of 5 clinical scenarios with problems (wrong test performed, abnormal result not followed-up, abnormal result overlooked, blood tube broken and missing scan results) was sent by mail to AAFP members and by e-mail to the experts. Physicians were asked to judge if an error occurred. A qualitative analysis was performed via "immersion and crystallization" of emergent insights from the collected data. RESULTS: While one definition, that originated by James Reason, predominated the literature search, we found 25 different definitions for error in the medical literature. Surveys were returned by 28.5% of 1000 AAFP members and 92% of 25 experts. Of the 5 scenarios, 100% felt overlooking an abnormal result was an error. For other scenarios there was less agreement (experts and AAFP members, respectively agreeing an error occurred): 100 and 87% when the wrong test was performed, 96 and 87% when an abnormal test was not followed up, 74 and 62% when scan results were not available during a patient visit, and 57 and 47% when a blood tube was broken. Through qualitative analysis, we found that three areas may affect how physicians make decisions about error: the process that occurred vs. the outcome that occurred, rare vs. common occurrences and system vs. individual responsibility CONCLUSION: There is a lack of consensus about what constitutes an error both in the medical literature and in decision making by family physicians. These potential areas of confusion need further study