Patient consideration of local hospital, center of excellence, and medical tourism options for surgery

An exploration of barriers to access to healthcare in Hancock County, Tennessee: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Explore barriers to healthcare access in Hancock County, Tennessee using a conceptual framework for access to healthcare.

METHODS

We collected data from 30 participants in Hancock County during 1 week in April 2023 using a combination of network and purposive sampling. We analyzed the data using thematic analysis and the conceptual framework of healthcare access.

RESULTS

All dimensions of the conceptual framework of healthcare access presented barriers to healthcare access for participants of the study. A lack of acceptability of local healthcare among participants manifested in a perceived lack of availability of healthcare. This resulted in participants travelling or considering it necessary to travel long distances for care, even in a life-threatening emergency, despite the local availability of a hospital with an emergency department.

CONCLUSIONS

A lack of acceptability can create healthcare access barriers similar to a lack of availability of healthcare facilities.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The research team met several times with the leader of a local community organization to discuss this research in Hancock County. These conversations helped to inform the study design and provided necessary background to conduct in-depth interviews. Members of the community organization helped identify individuals to interview and provide access to Remote Area Medical clinic patients. The research team discussed the final themes with the primary community collaborator.

Who Serves Where: A Geospatial Analysis of Access to Endocrine Surgeons in the United States and Puerto Rico

BACKGROUND

The association between surgical volume and patient outcome is well established, with higher case volume associated with a lower risk of complications. We hypothesized that the geographic distribution of endocrine/head and neck surgeons with an endocrine focus in the United States and Puerto Rico may limit access to many potential patients, particularly in rural areas.

METHODS

We used web-based directories from the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons, American Head and Neck Society, and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery to identify endocrine surgery specialists in the United States and Puerto Rico. Using geographic coordinates and OpenStreetMap and Valhalla software, we calculated the areas within a 60-, 90-, or 120-minute driving distance from specialist offices. We used 2020 U.S. Census Data to calculate census tract populations inside or outside the accessible areas.

RESULTS

Excluding duplicate providers across organizations, we geocoded 603 specialist addresses in the United States and Puerto. We found that 23.76% (78.3 million) of Americans do not have access to a society-affiliated endocrine/head and neck surgeon with an endocrine focus within a 60-minute drive, 14.37% (47.4 million) within a 90-minute drive, and 8.38% (27.6 million) within a 120-minute drive. We observed that the areas of coverage are primarily focused on metropolitan areas.

CONCLUSION

Nearly one-third of Americans do not have access to a society-affiliated endocrine/head and neck surgeon with an endocrine focus within a 1-hour drive, highlighting a concerning geographic barrier to care. Further work is needed to facilitate patient access and mitigate disparities in quality care.

Going the distance in acoustic neuroma resection: microsurgical outcomes at high-volume centers of excellence

PURPOSE

High-volume hospitals are associated with improved surgical outcomes for acoustic neuromas (ANs). Due to the benign and slow-growing nature of ANs, many patients travel to geographically distant cities, states, or countries for their treatment. However, the impact of travel burden to high-volume centers, as well as its relative benefit are poorly understood. We compared post-operative outcomes between AN patients that underwent treatment at local, low-volume hospitals with those that traveled long distances to high-volume hospitals.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was used to analyze AN patients that underwent surgery (2004-2015). Patients in the lowest quartile of travel distance and volume (Short-travel/Low-Volume: STLV) were compared to patients in the highest quartile of travel distance and volume (Long-travel/High-Volume: LTHV). Only STLV and LTHV cases were included for analysis.

RESULTS

Of 13,370 cases, 2,408 met inclusion criteria. STLV patients (n = 1,305) traveled a median of 6 miles (Interquartile range [IQR] 3-9) to low-volume centers (median 2, IQR 1-3 annual cases) and LTHV patients (n = 1,103) traveled a median of 143 miles [IQR 103-230, maximum 4,797] to high-volume centers (median 34, IQR 28-42 annual cases). LTHV patients had lower Charlson/Deyo scores (p = 0.001), mostly received care at academic centers (81.7% vs. 39.4%, p < 0.001), and were less likely to be minorities (7.0% vs. 24.2%, p < 0.001) or underinsured (4.2% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.001). There was no difference in average tumor size. On multivariable analysis, LTHV predicted increased likelihood of gross total resection (odds ratio [OR] 5.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8-8.4, p < 0.001), longer duration between diagnosis and surgery (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0-1.6, p = 0.040), decreased length of hospital stay (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4-0.7, p < 0.001), and greater overall survival (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.95, p = 0.029). There was no significant difference in 30-day readmission on adjusted analysis.

CONCLUSION

Although traveling farther to high-volume centers was associated with greater time between diagnosis and treatment for AN patients, they experienced superior postoperative outcomes compared to patients who received treatment locally at low-volume centers. Enabling access and travel to high-volume centers may improve AN patient outcomes.