Evaluating How Safety-Net Hospitals Are Identified: Systematic Review and Recommendations.

OBJECTIVE

To 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 SOURCES

Safety-net hospital-related studies in the MEDLINE database published before May 16, 2019.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of the literature that adheres to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We 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 FINDINGS

Our 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistency 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.