Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Laboratory, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Graduate School of Pubic Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Crit Care Med. 2010 Mar;38(3):759-65. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181c8fd58.
Recent studies reported lower quality of care for black vs. white patients with community-acquired pneumonia and suggested that disparities persist at the individual hospital level. We examined racial differences in emergency department and intensive care unit care processes to determine whether differences persist after adjusting for case-mix and variation in care across hospitals.
Prospective, observational cohort study.
Twenty-eight U.S. hospitals.
Patients with community-acquired pneumonia: 1738 white and 352 black patients.
None.
We compared care quality based on antibiotic receipt within 4 hrs and adherence to American Thoracic Society antibiotic guidelines, and intensity based on intensive care unit admission and mechanical ventilation use. Using random effects and generalized estimating equations models, we adjusted for case-mix and clustering of racial groups within hospitals and estimated odds ratios for differences in care within and across hospitals.
Black patients were less likely to receive antibiotics within 4 hrs (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.70; p < .001) and less likely to receive guideline-adherent antibiotics (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.91; p = .006). These differences were attenuated after adjusting for casemix (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval; 0.46-0.76 and 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.66 -1.09). Within hospitals, black and white patients received similar care quality (odds ratio, 1; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.04 and 1; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.03). However, hospitals that served a greater proportion of black patients were less likely to provide timely antibiotics (odds ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.90). Black patients were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.42; p = .042). Again, within hospitals, black and white subjects were equally likely to receive mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 1; 95% confidence interval, .94-1.06) and hospitals that served a greater proportion of black patients were more likely to institute mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.25).
Black patients appear to receive lower quality and higher intensity of care in crude analyses. However, these differences were explained by different case-mix and variation in care across hospitals. Within the same hospital, no racial differences in care were observed.
最近的研究报告称,与白人患者相比,黑人社区获得性肺炎患者的治疗质量较低,并表明这种差异在个体医院层面仍然存在。我们研究了急诊和重症监护病房护理过程中的种族差异,以确定在调整病例组合和医院间护理差异后,这些差异是否仍然存在。
前瞻性观察队列研究。
美国 28 家医院。
社区获得性肺炎患者:1738 名白人患者和 352 名黑人患者。
无。
我们根据抗生素在 4 小时内的使用情况和对美国胸科学会抗生素使用指南的遵从性来比较护理质量,并根据入住重症监护病房和使用机械通气的情况来比较护理强度。我们使用随机效应和广义估计方程模型,调整病例组合和医院内种族群体的聚类,并估计医院内和医院间护理差异的优势比。
黑人患者接受抗生素治疗的时间晚于白人患者(优势比,0.55;95%置信区间,0.43-0.70;p<0.001),接受符合指南的抗生素治疗的比例也低于白人患者(优势比,0.72;95%置信区间,0.57-0.91;p=0.006)。在调整病例组合后,这些差异有所减弱(优势比,0.59;95%置信区间,0.46-0.76 和 0.84;95%置信区间,0.66-1.09)。在医院内,黑人和白人患者接受的护理质量相似(优势比,1;95%置信区间,0.97-1.04 和 1;95%置信区间,0.97-1.03)。然而,为更多黑人患者服务的医院提供及时抗生素治疗的可能性较低(优势比,0.84;95%置信区间,0.78-0.90)。黑人患者更有可能接受机械通气治疗(优势比,1.57;95%置信区间,1.02-2.42;p=0.042)。同样,在医院内,黑人和白人患者接受机械通气的可能性相同(优势比,1;95%置信区间,0.94-1.06),为更多黑人患者服务的医院更有可能实施机械通气(优势比,1.13;95%置信区间,1.02-1.25)。
在初步分析中,黑人患者的治疗质量较低,治疗强度较高。然而,这些差异是由不同的病例组合和医院间护理差异所导致的。在同一家医院内,并未观察到护理方面的种族差异。