Department of Public Health, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Health Services Research and Development Center, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
BMJ Open. 2021 Apr 8;11(4):e046959. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046959.
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.
Cross-sectional study.
Data including all hospital admissions in four states (Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New York) in 2014.
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.
Risk-adjusted diagnostic and therapeutic procedure and in-hospital mortality, after adjusting for patient characteristics and state and quarter fixed effects.
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.
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.
有证据表明,无家可归者在一系列医疗条件下的护理质量和健康结果都更差。然而,尚不清楚在安全网医院和非安全网医院之间,护理提供方面的差异是否解释了这些差异。我们旨在调查因心血管疾病(急性心肌梗死(AMI)和中风)住院的无家可归者与非无家可归者在安全网医院和非安全网医院之间的护理提供和健康结果是否存在差异。
横断面研究。
包括 2014 年四个州(佛罗里达州、马萨诸塞州、马里兰州和纽约州)所有住院患者的数据。
我们分析了 167105 名年龄在 18 岁或以上因心血管疾病(年龄平均=64.5 岁;75361(45.1%)名女性;2123(1.3%)名无家可归者住院)从 348 家医院出院的成年人。
在调整了患者特征以及州和季度固定效应后,对风险调整后的诊断和治疗程序以及院内死亡率进行了评估。
在安全网医院,因 AMI 住院的无家可归成年人接受冠状动脉造影(校正比值比(aOR),0.42;95%CI,0.36 至 0.50;p<0.001)、经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(aOR,0.52;95%CI,0.44 至 0.62;p<0.001)和冠状动脉旁路移植术(aOR,0.43;95%CI,0.26 至 0.71;p<0.01)的可能性低于非无家可归成年人。在安全网医院接受治疗的中风患者接受脑动脉造影(aOR,0.23;95%CI,0.16 至 0.34;p<0.001)的可能性较低,但接受溶栓治疗的可能性相同。在非安全网医院,我们没有发现无家可归者和非无家可归者因 AMI 或中风住院接受这些治疗的可能性有差异。最后,在安全网或非安全网医院,无家可归患者与非无家可归患者的院内死亡率均无差异。
仅在安全网医院观察到无家可归者心血管疾病患者接受诊断和治疗的差异。然而,我们没有发现这些差异明显影响院内死亡率的证据。