Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco.
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Jul 1;7(7):e2421010. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.21010.
Stroke center certification is granted to facilities that demonstrate distinct capabilities for treating patients with stroke. A thorough understanding of structural discrimination in the provision of stroke centers is critical for identifying and implementing effective interventions to improve health inequities for socioeconomically disadvantaged populations.
To determine whether (1) hospitals in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities (defined using the Area Deprivation Index) are less likely to adopt any stroke certification and (2) adoption rates differ between entry-level (acute stroke-ready hospitals) and higher-level certifications (primary, thrombectomy capable, and comprehensive) by community disadvantage status.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study used newly collected stroke center data merged with data from the American Hospital Association, Healthcare Cost Report Information datasets, and the US Census. All general acute hospitals in the continental US between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2022, were included. Data analysis was conducted from July 2023 to May 2024.
The primary outcome was the likelihood of hospitals adopting stroke care certification. Cox proportional hazard and competing risk models were used to estimate the likelihood of a hospital becoming stroke certified based on the socioeconomic disadvantage status of the community.
Among the 5055 hospitals studied from 2009 to 2022, 2415 (47.8%) never achieved stroke certification, 602 (11.9%) were certified as acute stroke-ready hospitals, and 2038 (40.3%) were certified as primary stroke centers or higher. When compared with mixed-advantage communities, adoption of any stroke certification was most likely to occur near the most advantaged communities (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.44) and least likely near the most disadvantaged communities (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34-0.55). Adoption of acute stroke-ready certification was most likely in mixed-advantage communities, while adoption of higher-level certification was more likely in the most advantaged communities (HR,1.41; 95% CI, 1.22-1.62) and less likely for the most disadvantaged communities (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21-0.45). After adjusting for population size and hospital capacity, compared with mixed-advantage communities, stroke certification adoption hazard was still 20% lower for relatively disadvantaged communities (adjusted HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.87) and 42% lower for the most disadvantaged communities (adjusted HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.74).
In this cohort study examining hospital adoption of stroke services, when compared with mixed-advantage communities, hospitals located in the most disadvantaged communities had a 42% lower hazard of adopting any stroke certification and relatively disadvantaged communities had a 20% lower hazard of adopting any stroke certification. These findings suggest that there is a need to support hospitals in disadvantaged communities to obtain stroke certification as a way to reduce stroke disparities.
背景:中风中心认证授予那些能够为中风患者提供特定治疗服务的机构。深入了解在提供中风中心服务方面的结构性歧视,对于确定并实施有效的干预措施,改善社会经济弱势群体的健康不平等状况至关重要。
目的:确定(1)社会经济弱势群体(使用区域贫困指数定义)中的医院是否不太可能获得任何中风认证,以及(2)根据社区劣势状况,采用率在入门级(急性中风准备就绪的医院)和更高级别的认证(初级、血栓切除术能力和综合)之间是否存在差异。
设计、地点和参与者:本队列研究使用了新收集的中风中心数据,结合了美国医院协会、医疗保健成本报告信息数据集和美国人口普查的数据。研究纳入了 2009 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 12 月 31 日期间美国大陆的所有普通急性医院。数据分析于 2023 年 7 月至 2024 年 5 月进行。
主要结局和测量:主要结局是医院获得中风护理认证的可能性。使用 Cox 比例风险和竞争风险模型来估计医院根据社区的社会经济劣势状况获得中风认证的可能性。
结果:在研究的 2009 年至 2022 年间的 5055 家医院中,2415 家(47.8%)从未获得中风认证,602 家(11.9%)被认证为急性中风准备就绪的医院,2038 家(40.3%)被认证为初级中风中心或更高级别。与混合优势社区相比,任何中风认证的采用最有可能发生在最有利的社区附近(风险比[HR],1.24;95%CI,1.07-1.44),而最不利的社区则最不可能(HR,0.43;95%CI,0.34-0.55)。急性中风准备就绪认证的采用最有可能发生在混合优势社区,而更高级别的认证的采用则更有可能发生在最有利的社区(HR,1.41;95%CI,1.22-1.62),而在最不利的社区则不太可能(HR,0.31;95%CI,0.21-0.45)。在调整人口规模和医院容量后,与混合优势社区相比,相对弱势社区中风认证的采用风险仍然低 20%(调整后的 HR,0.80;95%CI,0.73-0.87),最不利社区的采用风险低 42%(调整后的 HR,0.58;95%CI,0.45-0.74)。
结论:在这项队列研究中,研究了医院对中风服务的采用情况,与混合优势社区相比,位于最不利社区的医院获得任何中风认证的风险降低了 42%,相对弱势社区的风险降低了 20%。这些发现表明,需要支持弱势社区的医院获得中风认证,以减少中风方面的差异。