Kummerow Broman Kristy, Phillips Sharon, Hayes Rachel M, Ehrenfeld Jesse M, Holzman Michael D, Sharp Kenneth, Kripalani Sunil, Poulose Benjamin K
Section of Surgical Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (GRECC), Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
J Surg Res. 2016 Feb;200(2):579-85. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2015.08.021. Epub 2015 Aug 20.
There is a perception among surgeons that hospitals disproportionately transfer unfavorably insured patients for emergency surgical care. Emergency medical condition (EMC) designation mandates referral center acceptance of patients for whom transfer is requested. We sought to understand whether unfavorably insured patients are more likely to be designated as EMCs.
A retrospective cohort study was performed on patient transfers from a large network of acute care facilities to emergency surgery services at a tertiary referral center from 2009-2013. Insurance was categorized as favorable (commercial or Medicare) or unfavorable (Medicaid or uninsured). The primary outcome, transfer designation as EMC or non-EMC, was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. A secondary analysis evaluated uninsured patients only.
There were 1295 patient transfers in the study period. Twenty percent had unfavorable insurance. Favorably insured patients were older with fewer nonwhite, more comorbidities, greater illness severity, and more likely transferred for care continuity. More unfavorably insured patients were designated as EMCs (90% versus 84%, P < 0.01). In adjusted models, there was no association between unfavorable insurance and EMC transfer (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-2.69). Uninsured patients were more likely to be designated as EMCs (OR, 2.27; CI, 1.08-4.77).
The finding that uninsured patients were more likely to be designated as EMCs suggests nonclinical variation that may be mitigated by clearer definitions and increased interfacility coordination to identify patients requiring transfer for EMCs.
外科医生中有这样一种看法,即医院在紧急外科护理方面过度转送保险情况不佳的患者。紧急医疗状况(EMC)指定要求转诊中心接收被请求转送的患者。我们试图了解保险情况不佳的患者是否更有可能被指定为紧急医疗状况患者。
对2009年至2013年从大型急性护理机构网络转至一家三级转诊中心的急诊手术服务的患者进行了一项回顾性队列研究。保险类别分为有利(商业保险或医疗保险)或不利(医疗补助或无保险)。主要结局,即转送至紧急医疗状况或非紧急医疗状况的指定,使用多变量逻辑回归进行评估。二次分析仅评估无保险患者。
研究期间有1295例患者被转送。20%的患者保险情况不佳。保险情况有利的患者年龄较大,非白人较少,合并症更多,疾病严重程度更高,且更有可能因护理连续性而被转送。更多保险情况不利的患者被指定为紧急医疗状况患者(90%对84%,P<0.01)。在调整模型中,保险情况不利与紧急医疗状况转送之间无关联(比值比[OR],1.61;95%置信区间[CI],0.98 - 2.69)。无保险患者更有可能被指定为紧急医疗状况患者(OR,2.27;CI,1.08 - 4.77)。
无保险患者更有可能被指定为紧急医疗状况患者这一发现表明存在非临床差异,可通过更清晰的定义和加强机构间协调以识别需要转送至紧急医疗状况的患者来缓解这种差异。