scholarly journals Clinical, behavioural and social factors associated with racial disparities in COVID-19 patients from an integrated healthcare system in Georgia: a retrospective cohort study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e044052
Author(s):  
Felipe Lobelo ◽  
Alan Bienvenida ◽  
Serena Leung ◽  
Armand Mbanya ◽  
Elizabeth Leslie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Racial Disparities ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Integrated Healthcare ◽  
Icu Admission ◽  
Hospitalised Patients

ObjectivesTo identify sociodemographic, clinical and behavioural drivers of racial disparities and their association with clinical outcomes among Kaiser Permanente Georgia (KPGA) members with COVID-19.DesignRetrospective cohort of patients with COVID-19 seen from 3 March to 29 October 2020. We described the distribution of underlying comorbidities, quality of care metrics, demographic and social determinants of health (SDOH) indicators across race groups. We also described clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients including length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, readmission and mortality. We performed multivariable analyses for hospitalisation risk among all patients with COVID-19 and stratifyied by race and sex.SettingKPGA, an integrated healthcare system.Participants5712 patients who all had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Of them, 57.8% were female, 58.4% black, 29.5% white, 8.5% Hispanic and 3.6% Asian.ResultsBlack patients had the highest proportions of living in neighborhoods under the federal poverty line (12.4%) and in more deprived locations (neighbourhood deprivation index=0.4). Overall, 14.4% (n=827) of this cohort was hospitalised. Asian patients had the highest rates of ICU admission (53.1%) and mechanical ventilation (21.9%). Among all patients, Hispanics (adjusted 1.60, 95% CI (1.08, 2.37)), blacks (1.43 (1.13, 1.83)), age in years (1.03 (1.02, 1.04)) and living in a zip code with high unemployment (1.08 (1.03, 1.13)) were associated with higher odds of hospitalisation. COVID-19 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (2.59 (1.67, 4.02)), chronic heart failure (1.79 (1.31, 2.45)), immunocompromised (1.77 (1.16, 2.70)), with glycated haemoglobin >8% (1.68 (1.19, 2.38)), depression (1.60 (1.24, 2.06)), hypertension (1.5 (1.21, 1.87)) and physical inactivity (1.25 (1.03, 1.51)) had higher odds of hospitalisation.ConclusionsBlack and Hispanic KPGA patients were at higher odds of hospitalisation, but not mortality, compared with other race groups. Beyond previously reported sociodemographics and comorbidities, factors such as quality of care, lifestyle behaviours and SDOH indicators should be considered when designing and implementing interventions to reduce COVID-19 racial disparities.

scholarly journals The potential impact of triage protocols on racial disparities in clinical outcomes among COVID-positive patients in a large academic healthcare system

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. e0256763
Author(s):  
Shireen Roy ◽  
Mary Showstark ◽  
Benjamin Tolchin ◽  
Nitu Kashyap ◽  
Jennifer Bonito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Racial Disparities ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Sofa Score ◽  
The United States ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Icu Admission ◽  
Black Patients ◽  
Black Populations

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact in the United States, particularly for Black populations, and has heavily burdened the healthcare system. Hospitals have created protocols to allocate limited resources, but there is concern that these protocols will exacerbate disparities. The sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score is a tool often used in triage protocols. In these protocols, patients with higher SOFA scores are denied resources based on the assumption that they have worse clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to assess whether using SOFA score as a triage tool among COVID-positive patients would exacerbate racial disparities in clinical outcomes. Methods We analyzed data from a retrospective cohort of hospitalized COVID-positive patients in the Yale-New Haven Health System. We examined associations between race/ethnicity and peak overall/24-hour SOFA score, in-hospital mortality, and ICU admission. Other predictors of interest were age, sex, primary language, and insurance status. We used one-way ANOVA and chi-square tests to assess differences in SOFA score across racial/ethnic groups and linear and logistic regression to assess differences in clinical outcomes by sociodemographic characteristics. Results Our final sample included 2,554 patients. Black patients had higher SOFA scores compared to patients of other races. However, Black patients did not have significantly greater in-hospital mortality or ICU admission compared to patients of other races. Conclusion While Black patients in this sample of hospitalized COVID-positive patients had higher SOFA scores compared to patients of other races, this did not translate to higher in-hospital mortality or ICU admission. Results demonstrate that if SOFA score had been used to allocate care, Black COVID patients would have been denied care despite having similar clinical outcomes to white patients. Therefore, using SOFA score to allocate resources has the potential to exacerbate racial inequities by disproportionately denying care to Black patients and should not be used to determine access to care. Healthcare systems must develop and use COVID-19 triage protocols that prioritize equity.

scholarly journals Cross-sectional observational study of epidemiology of COVID-19 and clinical outcomes of hospitalised patients in North West London during March and April 2020

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e044384
Author(s):  
Guduru Gopal Rao ◽  
Alexander Allen ◽  
Padmasayee Papineni ◽  
Liyang Wang ◽  
Charlotte Anderson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Severe Infection ◽  
Older Age ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
North West ◽  
Icu Admission ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Hospitalised Patients ◽  
Increased Risk

ObjectiveThe aim of this paper is to describe evolution, epidemiology and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in subjects tested at or admitted to hospitals in North West London.DesignObservational cohort study.SettingLondon North West Healthcare NHS Trust (LNWH).ParticipantsPatients tested and/or admitted for COVID-19 at LNWH during March and April 2020Main outcome measuresDescriptive and analytical epidemiology of demographic and clinical outcomes (intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation and mortality) of those who tested positive for COVID-19.ResultsThe outbreak began in the first week of March 2020 and reached a peak by the end of March and first week of April. In the study period, 6183 tests were performed in on 4981 people. Of the 2086 laboratory confirmed COVID-19 cases, 1901 were admitted to hospital. Older age group, men and those of black or Asian minority ethnic (BAME) group were predominantly affected (p<0.05). These groups also had more severe infection resulting in ICU admission and need for mechanical ventilation (p<0.05). However, in a multivariate analysis, only increasing age was independently associated with increased risk of death (p<0.05). Mortality rate was 26.9% in hospitalised patients.ConclusionThe findings confirm that men, BAME and older population were most commonly and severely affected groups. Only older age was independently associated with mortality.

scholarly journals Characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for mortality of 522 167 patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in Brazil: a retrospective cohort study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e049089
Author(s):  
Marcia C Castro ◽  
Susie Gurzenda ◽  
Eduardo Marques Macário ◽  
Giovanny Vinícius A França
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Study ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Hospital Death ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Icu Admission ◽  
Hospitalised Patients

ObjectiveTo provide a comprehensive description of demographic, clinical and radiographic characteristics; treatment and case outcomes; and risk factors associated with in-hospital death of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in Brazil.DesignRetrospective cohort study of hospitalised patients diagnosed with COVID-19.SettingData from all hospitals across Brazil.Participants522 167 hospitalised patients in Brazil by 14 December 2020 with severe acute respiratory illness, and a confirmed diagnosis for COVID-19.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrevalence of symptoms and comorbidities was compared by clinical outcomes and intensive care unit (ICU) admission status. Survival was assessed using Kaplan Meier survival estimates. Risk factors associated with in-hospital death were evaluated with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression.ResultsOf the 522 167 patients included in this study, 56.7% were discharged, 0.002% died of other causes, 30.7% died of causes associated with COVID-19 and 10.2% remained hospitalised. The median age of patients was 61 years (IQR, 47–73), and of non-survivors 71 years (IQR, 60–80); 292 570 patients (56.0%) were men. At least one comorbidity was present in 64.5% of patients and in 76.8% of non-survivors. From illness onset, the median times to hospital and ICU admission were 6 days (IQR, 3–9) and 7 days (IQR, 3–10), respectively; 15 days (IQR, 9–24) to death and 15 days (IQR, 11–20) to hospital discharge. Risk factors for in-hospital death included old age, Black/Brown ethnoracial self-classification, ICU admission, being male, living in the North and Northeast regions and various comorbidities. Age had the highest HRs of 5.51 (95% CI: 4.91 to 6.18) for patients≥80, compared with those ≤20.ConclusionsCharacteristics of patients and risk factors for in-hospital mortality highlight inequities of COVID-19 outcomes in Brazil. As the pandemic continues to unfold, targeted policies that address those inequities are needed to mitigate the unequal burden of COVID-19.

The impact of sex, gender and healthcare system on quality of care among young adults with acute myocardial infarction

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
V Raparelli ◽  
L Pilote ◽  
H Behlouli ◽  
J Dziura ◽  
H Bueno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Young Adults ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Quality Indicators ◽  
Funding Source ◽  
Post Discharge ◽  
Single Payer

Abstract Background The quality of care among young adults with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) may be related to biological sex, psycho-socio-cultural (gender) determinants or healthcare system-level factors. Purpose To examine whether sex, gender, and the type of healthcare system influence the quality of AMI care among young adults. Methods A total of 4,564 AMI young adults (&lt;55 years) (59% women, 47 years, 66% US) were analyzed from the VIRGO and GENESIS-PRAXY studies consisting of single-payer (Canada, Spain) versus multipayer (US) systems. For each patient treated in each system we calculated a quality of care score (QCS) for pre-AMI (1-year pre admission), in-hospital, and post-AMI (1-year post discharge) phases of care (number of quality indicators received divided by the total number [range=0–100%], with higher scores indicating better quality). Ordinal logistic or linear regression models, and 2-way interactions between sex, gender and healthcare system were tested. Results Women in the multipayer system had the highest risk factor burden. Across the phases of care for AMI, 20% of quality indicators were missed in both sexes. High stress, earner status, and social support were associated with a higher QCS in the pre-AMI phase, whereas only employment and earner status were associated with QCS in all other phases. In the pre-AMI phase, women had higher QCS than men, mainly in the single-payer system (adjusted-OR=1.85, 95% CI 1.46,2.35 vs. 1.07, 95% CI 0.84,1.36, P-interaction= 0.002). Regardless of sex, only employment status had a greater effect in the multipayer system (adjusted-OR=0.59, 95% CI 0.44,0.78 vs 1.13, 95% CI 0.89,1.44, P-interaction &lt;0.001). In the in-hospital phase, women had a lower QCS than men, especially in the multipayer system (adjusted-mean-difference: −2.48, 95% CI-3.87, −1.08). Employment was associated with a higher QCS (2.0, 95% CI 0.9–3.17, P-interaction &gt;0.05). Finally, in the post-AMI phase, men and women had a lower QCS, predominantly in the multipayer system. However, primary earners had higher QCS regardless of system. Conclusion Sex, gender, and healthcare system affected the quality of care after AMI. Women had a poorer in-hospital than men and both women and men had suboptimal post-discharge care. Being unemployed lowered the quality of care, more so in the multipayer system. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): Canadian Institutes of Health and Research (CIHR)

scholarly journals Quality of care for people with multimorbidity: a focus group study with patients and their relatives

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e047025
Author(s):  
Nadine Janis Pohontsch ◽  
Josefine Schulze ◽  
Charlotte Hoeflich ◽  
Katharina Glassen ◽  
Amanda Breckner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Coordinated Care ◽  
Treatment Standards ◽  
Focus Group Study ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Quality Aspects

BackgroundPrevalence of people with multimorbidity rises. Multimorbidity constitutes a challenge to the healthcare system, and treatment of patients with multimorbidity is prone to high-quality variations. Currently, no set of quality indicators (QIs) exists to assess quality of care, let alone incorporating the patient perspective. We therefore aim to identify aspects of quality of care relevant to the patients’ perspective and match them to a literature-based set of QIs.MethodsWe conducted eight focus groups with patients with multimorbidity and three focus groups with patients’ relatives using a semistructured guide. Data were analysed using Kuckartz’s qualitative content analysis. We derived deductive categories from the literature, added inductive categories (new quality aspects) and translated them into QI.ResultsWe created four new QIs based on the quality aspects relevant to patients/relatives. Two QIs (patient education/self-management, regular updates of medication plans) were consented by an expert panel, while two others were not (periodical check-ups, general practitioner-coordinated care). Half of the literature-based QIs, for example, assessment of biopsychosocial support needs, were supported by participants’ accounts, while more technical domains regarding assessment and treatment regimens were not addressed in the focus groups.ConclusionWe show that focus groups with patients and relatives adding relevant aspects in QI development should be incorporated by default in QI development processes and constitute a reasonable addition to traditional QI development. Our QI set constitutes a framework for assessing the quality of care in the German healthcare system. It will facilitate implementation of treatment standards and increase the use of existing guidelines, hereby helping to reduce overuse, underuse and misuse of healthcare resources in the treatment of patients with multimorbidity.Trial registration numberGerman clinical trials registry (DRKS00015718), Pre-Results.

scholarly journals Need to Intervene: An Exploratory Study of Nurses’ Experiences With Patienthood

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 237437352199884
Author(s):  
Marian A O Cohen ◽  
Jim McQuaid ◽  
Ruth Remington
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Family Caregiver ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Medical Personnel ◽  
Healthcare Personnel ◽  
Coordination Of Care ◽  
Professional Perspective

Much has been written about the patient experience, but there is little information about experiences of providers as patients. Since lay patients and providers have differing perspectives and expectations, it is important to identify those elements shared by those in each group and those that diverge. This study identified experiences of nurses as being a patient or a family caregiver of a patient as well as identified assessments of the healthcare system by nurses. An exploratory study using a self-administered electronic questionnaire with a group of registered nurses was conducted. Assessments of the system by responders were positive when addressing quality of care, interactions among healthcare personnel, and interactions with patients. However, when discussing their experiences as patient, nurses reported they encountered problems with coordination of care, responses of medical personnel, attention to details of care, and responses to their attempts to become more involved. Results confirm issues raised by patients who are not medical experts in patient satisfaction studies. Adding a professional perspective highlights where problems with the healthcare system lie.

scholarly journals Assessing methods for measurement of clinical outcomes and quality of care in primary care practices

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael E Green ◽  
William Hogg ◽  
Colleen Savage ◽  
Sharon Johnston ◽  
Grant Russell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Care Practices ◽  
Primary Care Practices

Abstract WMP88: Shorter Door-to-Needle Times of Intravenous Alteplase Improve “Efficiency” of Care and Moderately Affect “Quality” of Care: Study Based on a Large Comprehensive Stroke Center

Stroke ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Suja S Rajan ◽  
Jessica N Wise ◽  
Marquita Decker-palmer ◽  
Thanh Dao ◽  
Cynthia Salem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Heart Association ◽  
P Value ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
Inpatient Mortality ◽  
Care Outcomes ◽  
Comprehensive Stroke Center ◽  
Stroke Center

Introduction: The American Heart Association (AHA) recently raised the bar on timely treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) with intravenous (IV) alteplase, by recommending door-to-needle times of 30 minutes or less for 50% or more of the AIS patients. Our study looks at the effectiveness of this new standard, by examining the effect of varying door-to-needle times on efficiency and quality of care, and clinical outcomes. Methods: Our study examined 762 AIS patients treated with IV alteplase in a large academic health system from 2015-2018, and compared their outcomes after treatment within 30, 45 and 60 minutes of arrival. The outcomes compared were: 1) Efficiency of care outcome - Length of stay (LOS); 2) Quality of care outcomes - Inpatient mortality and Disability at discharge; 3) Clinical outcomes - Discharge and 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and Post-alteplase (24 hr) NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Adjusted logistic and linear regression analyses were used, after controlling for baseline patient socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Based on the adjusted regression analyses (Table 1), being treated within 30 minutes of arrival reduced the average LOS by 1.3 days (p-value: 0.02), but did not affect the quality of care outcomes. Similarly, being treated within 45 minutes of arrival reduced LOS by 0.9 days (p-value: 0.04). Being treated within 60 minutes of arrival did not affect LOS, but reduced the odds of inpatient mortality by 68% (p-value: 0.00), and disability at discharge by 29% (p-value: 0.08). Being treated within 30 minutes of arrival was associated with better mRS and NIHSS scores as compared with being treated within 45 or 60 minutes. Conclusion: Quicker IV alteplase treatment significantly improved efficiency of care and clinical outcomes. Quality of care outcomes did not improve beyond the 60 minute door-to-needle threshold. This study provides evidence supporting AHA’s new recommendation of 30 minutes or less door-to-needle time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document