Social Vulnerability and Emergency General Surgery among Medicare Beneficiaries

Socially vulnerable patients are more likely to fail outpatient management of symptomatic cholelithiasis

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic cholelithiasis is a common surgical problem, with many patients requiring multiple gallstone-related emergency department (ED) visits before cholecystectomy. The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) identifies vulnerable patient populations. This study aimed to assess the association between social vulnerability and outpatient management of symptomatic cholelithiasis.

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis-related ED visits were identified within our health system from 2016 to 2022. Clinical outcomes data were merged with SVI census track data, which consist of 4 SVI subthemes (socioeconomic status, household characteristics, racial and ethnic minority status, and housing type and transportation). Multivariate analysis was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 47,292 patients presented to the ED with symptomatic cholelithiasis, of which 6103 patients (13.3 %) resided in vulnerable census tract regions. Of these patients, 13,795 (29.2 %) underwent immediate cholecystectomy with a mean time to surgery of 35.1 h, 8250 (17.4 %) underwent elective cholecystectomy at a mean of 40.6 days from the initial ED visit, and 2924 (6.2 %) failed outpatient management and returned 1.26 times (range, 1-11) to the ED with recurrent biliary-related pain. Multivariate analysis found social vulnerability subthemes of socioeconomic status (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95 % CI, 1.09-1.52) and racial and ethnic minority status (OR, 2.41; 95 % CI, 2.05-2.83) to be associated with failure of outpatient management of symptomatic cholelithiasis.

CONCLUSION

Socially vulnerable patients are more likely to return to the ED with symptomatic cholelithiasis. Policies to support this vulnerable population in the outpatient setting with timely follow-up and elective cholecystectomy can help reduce delays in care and overutilization of ED resources.

Mapping the Ecological Terrain of Stroke Prehospital Delay: A Nationwide Registry Study

BACKGROUND

Delays in hospital presentation limit access to acute stroke treatments. While prior research has focused on patient-level factors, broader ecological and social determinants have not been well studied. We aimed to create a geospatial map of prehospital delay and examine the role of community-level social vulnerability.

METHODS

We studied patients with ischemic stroke who arrived by emergency medical services in 2015 to 2017 from the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-Stroke registry. The primary outcome was time to hospital arrival after stroke (in minutes), beginning at last known well in most cases. Using Geographic Information System mapping, we displayed the geography of delay. We then used Cox proportional hazard models to study the relationship between community-level factors and arrival time (adjusted hazard ratios [aHR] <1.0 indicate delay). The primary exposure was the social vulnerability index (SVI), a metric of social vulnerability for every ZIP Code Tabulation Area ranging from 0.0 to 1.0.

RESULTS

Of 750 336 patients, 149 145 met inclusion criteria. The mean age was 73 years, and 51% were female. The median time to hospital arrival was 140 minutes (Q1: 60 minutes, Q3: 458 minutes). The geospatial map revealed that many zones of delay overlapped with socially vulnerable areas (https://harvard-cga.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=08f6e885c71b457f83cefc71013bcaa7). Cox models (aHR, 95% CI) confirmed that higher SVI, including quartiles 3 (aHR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.93-0.98]) and 4 (aHR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.91-0.95]), was associated with delay. Patients from SVI quartile 4 neighborhoods arrived 15.6 minutes [15-16.2] slower than patients from SVI quartile 1. Specific SVI themes associated with delay were a community's socioeconomic status (aHR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.74-0.85]) and housing type and transportation (aHR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.84-0.94]).

CONCLUSIONS

This map of acute stroke presentation times shows areas with a high incidence of delay. Increased social vulnerability characterizes these areas. Such places should be systematically targeted to improve population-level stroke presentation times.

Rate of Emergency Lower Extremity Amputations in the United States Among Medicare Beneficiaries

OBJECTIVE

To determine the rate of emergency versus elective lower extremity amputations in the United States.

BACKGROUND

Lower extremity amputation is a common endpoint for patients with poorly controlled diabetes and multilevel peripheral vascular disease. Although the procedure is ideally performed electively, patients with limited access may present later and require an emergency operation. To what extent rates of emergency amputation for lower extremities vary across the United States is unknown.

METHODS

Evaluation of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent lower extremity amputation between 2015 and 2020. The rate was determined for each zip code and placed into rank order from lowest to highest rate. We merged each beneficiary's place of residence and location of care with the American Hospital Association Annual Survey using Google Maps Application Programming Interface to determine the travel distance for patients to undergo their procedure.

RESULTS

Of 233,084 patients, 66.3% (154,597) were men, 69.8% (162,786) were White. The average age (SD) was 74 years (8). There was wide variation in rates of emergency lower extremity amputation. The lowest quintile of zip codes demonstrated an emergency amputation rate of 3.7%, whereas the highest quintile demonstrated 90%. The median travel distance in the lowest emergency surgery rate quintile was 34.6 miles compared with 10.5 miles in the highest quintile of emergency surgery ( P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There is wide variation in the rate of emergency lower extremity amputations among Medicare beneficiaries, suggesting variable access to essential vascular care. Travel distance and rate of amputation have an inverse relationship, suggesting that barriers other than travel distance are playing a role.

Health Insurance Status and Unplanned Surgery for Access-Sensitive Surgical Conditions

Importance

Access-sensitive surgical conditions, such as abdominal aortic aneurysm, ventral hernia, and colon cancer, are ideally treated with elective surgery, but when left untreated have a natural history requiring an unplanned operation. Patients' health insurance status may be a barrier to receiving timely elective care, which may be associated with higher rates of unplanned surgery and worse outcomes.

Objective

To evaluate the association between patients' insurance status and rates of unplanned surgery for these 3 access-sensitive surgical conditions and postoperative outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional cohort study examined a geographically broad patient sample from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases, including data from 8 states (Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin). Participants were younger than 65 years who underwent abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, ventral hernia repair, or colectomy for colon cancer between 2016 and 2020. Patients were stratified into groups by insurance status. Data were analyzed from June 1 to July 1, 2023.

Exposure

Health insurance status (private insurance, Medicaid, or no insurance).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the rate of unplanned surgery for these 3 access-sensitive conditions. Secondary outcomes were rates of postoperative outcomes including inpatient mortality, any hospital complications, serious complications (a complication with a hospital length of stay longer than the 75th percentile for that procedure), and hospital length of stay.

Results

The study included 146 609 patients (mean [SD] age, 50.9 [10.3] years; 73 871 females [50.4%]). A total of 89 018 patients (60.7%) underwent elective surgery while 57 591 (39.3%) underwent unplanned surgery. Unplanned surgery rates varied significantly across insurance types (33.14% for patients with private insurance, 51.46% for those with Medicaid, and 72.60% for those without insurance; P < .001). Compared with patients with private insurance, patients without insurance had higher rates of inpatient mortality (1.29% [95% CI, 1.04%-1.54%] vs 0.61% [0.57%-0.66%]; P < .001), higher rates of any complications (19.19% [95% CI, 18.33%-20.05%] vs 12.27% [95% CI, 12.07%-12.47%]; P < .001), and longer hospital stays (7.27 [95% CI, 7.09-7.44] days vs 5.56 [95% CI, 5.53-5.60] days, P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings of this cohort study suggest that uninsured patients more often undergo unplanned surgery for conditions that can be treated electively, with worse outcomes and longer hospital stays compared with their counterparts with private health insurance. As efforts are made to improve insurance coverage, tracking elective vs unplanned surgery rates for access-sensitive surgical conditions may be a useful measure to assess progress.

The interaction between geriatric and neighborhood vulnerability: Delineating prehospital risk among older adult emergency general surgery patients

BACKGROUND

When presenting for emergency general surgery (EGS) care, older adults frequently experience increased risk of adverse outcomes owing to factors related to age ("geriatric vulnerability") and the social determinants of health unique to the places in which they live ("neighborhood vulnerability"). Little is known about how such factors collectively influence adverse outcomes. We sought to explore how the interaction between geriatric and neighborhood vulnerability influences EGS outcomes among older adults.

METHODS

Older adults, 65 years or older, hospitalized with an AAST-defined EGS condition were identified in the 2016 to 2019, 2021 Florida State Inpatient Database. Latent variable models combined the influence of patient age, multimorbidity, and Hospital Frailty Risk Score into a single metric of "geriatric vulnerability." Variations in geriatric vulnerability were then compared across differences in "neighborhood vulnerability" as measured by variations in Area Deprivation Index, Social Vulnerability Index, and their corresponding subthemes (e.g., access to transportation).

RESULTS

A total of 448,968 older adults were included. For patients living in the least vulnerable neighborhoods, increasing geriatric vulnerability resulted in up to six times greater risk of death (30-day risk-adjusted hazards ratio [HR], 6.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.49-8.89). The effect was more than doubled among patients living in the most vulnerable neighborhoods, where increasing geriatric vulnerability resulted in up to 15 times greater risk of death (30-day risk-adjusted HR, 15.12; 95% CI, 12.57-18.19). When restricted to racial/ethnic minority patients, the multiplicative effect was four-times as high, resulting in corresponding 30-day HRs for mortality of 11.53 (95% CI, 4.51-29.44) versus 40.67 (95% CI, 22.73-72.78). Similar patterns were seen for death within 365 days.

CONCLUSION

Both geriatric and neighborhood vulnerability have been shown to affect prehospital risk among older patients. The results of this study build on that work, presenting the first in-depth look at the powerful multiplicative interaction between these two factors. The results show that where a patient resides can fundamentally alter expected outcomes for EGS care such that otherwise less vulnerable patients become functionally equivalent to those who are, at baseline, more aged, more frail, and more sick.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Changes in Older Adult Trauma Quality When Evaluated Using Longer-Term Outcomes vs In-Hospital Mortality

Importance

Lack of knowledge about longer-term outcomes remains a critical blind spot for trauma systems. Recent efforts have expanded trauma quality evaluation to include a broader array of postdischarge quality metrics. It remains unknown how such quality metrics should be used.

Objective

To examine the utility of implementing recommended postdischarge quality metrics as a composite score and ascertain how composite score performance compares with that of in-hospital mortality for evaluating associations with hospital-level factors.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This national hospital-level quality assessment evaluated hospital-level care quality using 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims of older adults (aged ≥65 years) hospitalized with primary diagnoses of trauma, hip fracture, and severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. Hospitals with annual volumes encompassing 10 or more of each diagnosis were included. The data analysis was performed between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022.

Exposures

Reliability-adjusted quality metrics used to calculate composite scores included hospital-specific performance on mortality, readmission, and patients' average number of healthy days at home (HDAH) within 30, 90, and 365 days among older adults hospitalized with all forms of trauma, hip fracture, and severe TBI.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Associations with hospital-level factors were compared using volume-weighted multivariable logistic regression.

Results

A total of 573 554 older adults (mean [SD] age, 83.1 [8.3] years; 64.8% female; 35.2% male) from 1234 hospitals were included. All 27 reliability-adjusted postdischarge quality metrics significantly contributed to the composite score. The most important drivers were 30- and 90-day readmission, patients' average number of HDAH within 365 days, and 365-day mortality among all trauma patients. Associations with hospital-level factors revealed predominantly anticipated trends when older adult trauma quality was evaluated using composite scores (eg, worst performance was associated with decreased older adult trauma volume [odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.88-0.90]). Results for in-hospital mortality showed inverted associations for each considered hospital-level factor and suggested that compared with nontrauma centers, level 1 trauma centers had a 17 times higher risk-adjusted odds of worst (highest quantile) vs best (lowest quintile) performance (odds ratio, 17.08; 95% CI, 16.17-18.05).

Conclusions and Relevance

The study results challenge historical notions about the adequacy of in-hospital mortality as the single measure of older adult trauma quality and suggest that, when it comes to older adults, decisions about how quality is evaluated can profoundly alter understandings of what constitutes best practices for care. Composite scores appear to offer a promising means by which postdischarge quality metrics could be used.