Dataset Information

Processes of care and outcomes for homeless patients hospitalised for cardiovascular conditions at safety-net versus non-safety-net hospitals: cross-sectional study

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Evidence suggests that homeless patients experience worse quality of care and poorer health outcomes across a range of medical conditions. It remains unclear, however, whether differences in care delivery at safety-net versus non-safety-net hospitals explain these disparities. We aimed to investigate whether homeless versus non-homeless adults hospitalised for cardiovascular conditions (acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke) experience differences in care delivery and health outcomes at safety-net versus non-safety-net hospitals.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Setting

Data including all hospital admissions in four states (Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New York) in 2014.

Participants

We analysed 167 105 adults aged 18 years or older hospitalised for cardiovascular conditions (age mean=64.5 years; 75 361 (45.1%) women; 2123 (1.3%) homeless hospitalisations) discharged from 348 hospitals.

Outcome measures

Risk-adjusted diagnostic and therapeutic procedure and in-hospital mortality, after adjusting for patient characteristics and state and quarter fixed effects.

Results

At safety-net hospitals, homeless adults hospitalised for AMI were less likely to receive coronary angiogram (adjusted OR (aOR), 0.42; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.50; p<0.001), percutaneous coronary intervention (aOR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.62; p<0.001) and coronary artery bypass graft (aOR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.71; p<0.01) compared with non-homeless adults. Homeless patients treated for strokes at safety-net hospitals were less likely to receive cerebral arteriography (aOR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.34; p<0.001), but were as likely to receive thrombolysis therapy. At non-safety-net hospitals, we found no evidence that the probability of receiving these procedures differed between homeless and non-homeless adults hospitalised for AMI or stroke. Finally, there were no differences in in-hospital mortality rates for homeless versus non-homeless patients at either safety-net or non-safety-net hospitals.

Conclusion

Disparities in receipt of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for homeless patients with cardiovascular conditions were observed only at safety-net hospitals. However, we found no evidence that these differences influenced in-hospital mortality markedly.

SUBMITTER: Miyawaki A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8039275 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically review how safety-net hospitals' status is identified and defined, discuss current definitions' limitations, and provide recommendations for a new classification and evaluation framework.Data sourcesSafety-net hospital-related studies in the MEDLINE database published before May 16, 2019.Study designSystematic review of the literature that adheres to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.Data collection/extraction methodsWe followed standard selection protocol, whereby studies went through an abstract review followed by a full-text screening for eligibility. For each included study, we extracted information about the identification method itself, including the operational definition, the dimension(s) of disadvantage reflected, study objective, and how safety-net status was evaluated.Principal findingsOur review identified 132 studies investigating safety-net hospitals. Analysis of identification methodologies revealed substantial heterogeneity in the ways disadvantage is defined, measured, and summarized at the hospital level, despite a 4.5-fold increase in studies investigating safety-net hospitals for the past decade. Definitions often exclusively used low-income proxies captured within existing health system data, rarely incorporated external social risk factor measures, and were commonly separated into distinct safety-net status categories when analyzed.ConclusionsConsistency in research and improvement in policy both require a standard definition for identifying safety-net hospitals. Yet no standardized definition of safety-net hospitals is endorsed and existing definitions have key limitations. Moving forward, approaches rooted in health equity theory can provide a more holistic framework for evaluating disadvantage at the hospital level. Furthermore, advancements in precision public health technologies make it easier to incorporate detailed neighborhood-level social determinants of health metrics into multidimensional definitions. Other countries, including the United Kingdom and New Zealand, have used similar methods of identifying social need to determine more accurate assessments of hospital performance and the development of policies and targeted programs for improving outcomes.

Project description:Importance:Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of death among homeless adults, with mortality rates that are substantially higher than in the general population. It is unknown whether differences in hospitalization-related care contribute to these disparities in cardiovascular outcomes. Objective:To evaluate differences in intensity of care and mortality between homeless and nonhomeless individuals hospitalized for cardiovascular conditions (ie, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiac arrest, or heart failure). Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective cross-sectional study included all hospitalizations for cardiovascular conditions among homeless adults (n?=?24?890) and nonhomeless adults (n?=?1?827?900) 18 years or older in New York, Massachusetts, and Florida from January 1, 2010, to September 30, 2015. Statistical analysis was performed from February 6 to July 16, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:Risk-standardized diagnostic and therapeutic procedure rates and in-hospital mortality rates. Results:Of the 1?852?790 total hospitalizations for cardiovascular conditions across 525 hospitals, 24?890 occurred among patients who were homeless (11?452 women and 13?438 men; mean [SD] age, 65.1 [14.8] years) and 1?827?900 occurred among patients who were not homeless (850?660 women and 977?240 men; mean [SD] age, 72.1 [14.6] years). Most hospitalizations among homeless individuals were primarily concentrated among 11 hospitals. Homeless adults were more likely than nonhomeless adults to be black (38.6% vs 15.6%) and insured by Medicaid (49.3% vs 8.5%). After accounting for differences in demographics (age, sex, and race/ethnicity), insurance payer, and clinical comorbidities, homeless adults hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction were less likely to undergo coronary angiography compared with nonhomeless adults (39.5% vs 70.9%; P?<?.001), percutaneous coronary intervention (24.8% vs 47.4%; P?<?.001), and coronary artery bypass graft (2.5% vs 7.0%; P?<?.001). Among adults hospitalized with stroke, those who were homeless were less likely than nonhomeless individuals to undergo cerebral angiography (2.9% vs 9.5%; P?<?.001) but were as likely to receive thrombolytic therapy (4.8% vs 5.2%; P?=?.28). In the cardiac arrest cohort, homeless adults were less likely than nonhomeless adults to undergo coronary angiography (10.1% vs 17.6%; P?<?.001) and percutaneous coronary intervention (0.0% vs 4.7%; P?<?.001). Risk-standardized mortality was higher for homeless persons with ST-elevation myocardial infarction compared with nonhomeless persons (8.3% vs 6.2%; P?=?.04). Mortality rates were also higher for homeless persons than for nonhomeless persons hospitalized with stroke (8.9% vs 6.3%; P?<?.001) or cardiac arrest (76.1% vs 57.4%; P?<?.001) but did not differ for heart failure (1.6% vs 1.6%; P?=?.83). Conclusions and Relevance:There are significant disparities in in-hospital care and mortality between homeless and nonhomeless adults with cardiovascular conditions. There is a need for public health and policy efforts to support hospitals that care for homeless persons to reduce disparities in hospital-based care and improve health outcomes for this population.

Project description:ImportanceIn the US, federal value-based incentive programs are more likely to penalize safety-net institutions than non-safety-net institutions. Whether these programs differentially change the rates of targeted health care-associated infections in safety-net vs non-safety-net hospitals is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the association of Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) and Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) implementation with changes in rates of targeted health care-associated infections and disparities in rates among safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals.Design, setting, and participantsThis interrupted time series included all US acute care hospitals enrolled in the Preventing Avoidable Infectious Complications by Adjusting Payment study that participated in mandatory reporting to the National Healthcare Safety Network from January 1, 2013, through June 30, 2018. Hospital characteristics were obtained from the 2015 American Hospital Association annual survey. Penalty statuses for 2015 to 2018 were obtained from Hospital Compare. Data were analyzed between July 9, 2018, and October 1, 2019.ExposuresHACRP and HVBP implementation in fiscal year 2015 or 2016.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were rates of 4 health care-associated infections: central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), surgical site infection (SSI) after colon surgical procedures, and SSI after abdominal hysterectomy procedures. Regression models were fit using generalized estimating equations to assess the association of HACRP and HVBP implementation with health care-associated infection rates and disparities in infection rates.ResultsOf the 618 acute care hospitals included in this study, 473 (76.5%) were non-safety net and 145 (23.5%) were considered safety net. In these hospitals, HACRP and HVBP implementation was not associated with improvements in level or trend for any health care-associated infection examined (eg, CAUTI in safety-net hospitals: incidence rate ratio [IRR] for level change, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.79-1.23; P = .89]; IRR for change in slope, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.97-1.03; P = .80]). Before program implementation, infection rates were statistically significantly higher for safety-net than for non-safety-net hospitals for CLABSI (IRR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.42; P = .004), CAUTI (IRR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.16-1.64; P < .001), and SSI after colon surgical procedure (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06-1.50; P = .009). The disparity persisted over time when comparing the last year of the study with the first year (CLABSI: ratio of ratios [ROR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.77-1.13; P = .48]; CAUTI: ROR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73-1.10; P = .31]; SSI after colon surgical procedures: ROR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.78-1.20; P = .75]). Rates of SSI after abdominal hysterectomy procedure were similar in safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals before implementation (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.91-1.40; P = .27) but higher after implementation (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.11-1.83; P = .006), although this change was not significant (ROR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.91-1.59; P = .20).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that HACRP and HVBP implementation was not associated with any improvements in targeted health care-associated infections among safety-net or non-safety-net hospitals or with changes in disparities in infection rates. Given the persistent health care-associated infection rate disparities, these programs appear to function as a disproportionate penalty system for safety-net hospitals that offer no measurable benefits for patients.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough readmission rates are declining under Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), concerns remain that the HRRP will harm quality at safety-net hospitals because they are penalized more often. Disparities between white and black patients might widen because more black patients receive care at safety-net hospitals. Disparities may be particularly worse for clinical conditions not targeted by the HRRP because hospitals might reallocate resources toward targeted conditions (acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, and heart failure) at the expense of nontargeted conditions.ObjectiveTo examine disparities in readmission rates between white and black patients discharged from safety-net or non-safety-net hospitals after the HRRP began, evaluating discharges for any clinical condition and the subsets of targeted and nontargeted conditions.Design, setting, and participantsCohort study conducting quasi-experimental analyses of patient hospital discharges for any clinical condition among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries from 2007 to 2015 after controlling for patient and hospital characteristics. Changes in disparities were measured within safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals after the HRRP penalties were enforced and compared with prior trends. These analyses were then stratified by targeted and nontargeted conditions. Analyses were conducted from October 1, 2017, through August 31, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresTrends in 30-day readmission rates among white and black patients by quarter and differences in trends across periods.ResultsThe study sample included 58 237 056 patient discharges (black patients, 9.8%; female, 57.7%; mean age [SD] age, 78.8 [7.9] years; nontargeted conditions, 50 372 806 [86.5%]). Within safety-net hospitals, disparities in readmission rates for all clinical conditions widened between black and white patients by 0.04 percentage point per quarter in the HRRP penalty period (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.07; P = .01). This widening was driven by nontargeted conditions (0.05 percentage point per quarter [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.08]; P = .006), whereas disparities for the HRRP-targeted conditions did not change (with an increase of 0.01 percentage point per quarter [95% CI, -0.07 to 0.10]; P = .74). Within non-safety-net hospitals, racial disparities remained stable in the HRRP penalty period across all conditions, whether the conditions were HRRP-targeted or nontargeted.Conclusions and relevanceFindings from this study suggest that disparities are widening within safety-net hospitals, specifically for non-HRRP-targeted conditions. Although increases in racial disparities for nontargeted conditions were modest, they represent 6 times more discharges in our cohort than targeted conditions.