Valerie K. Scott

Racial Disparities in Surgical Care and Outcomes in the United States: A Comprehensive Review of Patient, Provider, and Systemic Factors

It is well known that there are significant racial disparities in health care outcomes, including surgery. However, the mechanisms that lead to these disparities are still not fully understood. In this comprehensive review of the currently published surgical disparity literature in the United States, we assess racial disparities in outcomes after surgical procedures, focusing on patient, provider, and systemic factors. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched with the keywords: healthcare disparities AND surgery AND outcome AND US. Only primary research articles published between April 1990 and December 2011 were included in the study. Studies analyzing surgical patients of all ages and assessing the endpoints of mortality, morbidity, or the likelihood of receiving surgical therapy were included. A total of 88 articles met the inclusion criteria. This evidence-based review was compiled in a systematic manner, relying on retrospective, cross-sectional, case-control, and prospective studies in the absence of Class I studies. The review found that patient factors such as insurance status and socioeconomic status (SES) need to be further explored, as studies indicated only a premature understanding of the relationship between racial disparities and SES. Provider factors such as differences in surgery rates and treatment by low volume or low quality surgeons also appear to play a role in minority outcome disparities. Finally, systemic factors such as access to care, hospital volume, and hospital patient population have been shown to contribute to disparities, with research consistently demonstrating that equal access to care mitigates outcome disparities.

Association Between Hospitals Caring for a Disproportionately High Percentage of Minority Trauma Patients and Increased Mortality: A Nationwide Analysis of 434 Hospitals

OBJECTIVE To determine whether there is an increased odds of mortality among trauma patients treated at hospitals with higher proportions of minority patients (ie, black and Hispanic patients combined). DESIGN Hospitals were categorized on the basis of the percentage of minority patients admitted with trauma. The adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality were compared between hospitals with less than 25% of patients who were minorities (the reference group) and hospitals with 25% to 50% of patients who were minorities and hospitals with more than 50% of patients who were minorities. Multivariate logistic regression (with generalized linear modeling and a cluster-correlated robust estimate of variance) was used to control for multiple patient and injury severity characteristics. SETTING A total of 434 hospitals in the National Trauma Data Bank. PARTICIPANTS Patients aged 18 to 64 years whose medical records were included in the National Trauma Data Bank for the years 2007 and 2008 with an Injury Severity Score of 9 or greater and who were white, black, or Hispanic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Crude mortality and adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality. RESULTS A total of 311,568 patients were examined. Hospitals in which the percentage of minority patients was more than 50% also had younger patients, fewer female patients, more patients with penetrating trauma, and the highest crude mortality. After adjustment for potential confounders, patients treated at hospitals in which the percentage of minority patients was 25% to 50% and at hospitals in which the percentage of minority patients was more than 50% demonstrated increased odds of death (adjusted odds ratio, 1.16 [95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.34] and adjusted odds ratio, 1.37 [95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.61], respectively), compared with the reference group. This disparity increased further on subset analysis of patients with a blunt injury. Uninsured patients had significantly increased odds of mortality within all 3 hospital groups. CONCLUSIONS Patients treated at hospitals with higher proportions of minority trauma patients have increased odds of dying, even after adjusting for potential confounders. Differences in outcomes between trauma hospitals may partly explain racial disparities.

Unconscious race and class bias: Its association with decision making by trauma and acute care surgeons

BACKGROUND Recent studies have found that unconscious biases may influence physicians’ clinical decision making. The objective of our study was to determine, using clinical vignettes, if unconscious race and class biases exist specifically among trauma/acute care surgeons and, if so, whether those biases impact surgeons’ clinical decision making. METHODS A prospective Web-based survey was administered to active members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. Participants completed nine clinical vignettes, each with three trauma/acute care surgery management questions. Race Implicit Association Test (IAT) and social class IAT assessments were completed by each participant. Multivariable, ordered logistic regression analysis was then used to determine whether implicit biases reflected on the IAT tests were associated with vignette responses. RESULTS In total, 248 members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma participated. Of these, 79% explicitly stated that they had no race preferences and 55% stated they had no social class preferences. However, 73.5% of the participants had IAT scores demonstrating an unconscious preference toward white persons; 90.7% demonstrated an implicit preference toward upper social class persons. Only 2 of 27 vignette-based clinical decisions were associated with patient race or social class on univariate analyses. Multivariable analyses revealed no relationship between IAT scores and vignette-based clinical assessments. CONCLUSION Unconscious preferences for white and upper-class persons are prevalent among trauma and acute care surgeons. In this study, these biases were not statistically significantly associated with clinical decision making. Further study of the factors that may prevent implicit biases from influencing patient management is warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Epidemiologic study, level II.

Outcomes of trauma care at centers treating a higher proportion of older patients: The case for geriatric trauma centers

BACKGROUND The burden of injury among older patients continues to grow and accounts for a disproportionate number of trauma deaths. We wished to determine if older trauma patients have better outcomes at centers that manage a higher proportion of older trauma patients. METHODS The National Trauma Data Bank years 2007 to 2011 was used. All high-volume Level 1 and Level 2 trauma centers were included. Trauma centers were categorized by the proportion of older patients seen. Adult trauma patients were categorized as older (≥65 years) and younger adults (16–64 years). Coarsened exact matching was used to determine differences in mortality and length of stay between older and younger adults. Risk-adjusted mortality ratios by proportion of older trauma patients seen were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression models and observed-expected ratios. RESULTS A total of 1.9 million patients from 295 centers were included. Older patients accounted for one fourth of trauma visits. Matched analysis revealed that older trauma patients were 4.2 times (95% confidence interval, 3.99–4.50) more likely to die than younger patients. Older patients were 34% less likely to die if they presented at centers treating a high versus low proportion of older trauma (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.54–0.81). These differences were independent of trauma center performance. CONCLUSION Geriatric trauma patients treated at centers that manage a higher proportion of older patients have improved outcomes. This evidence supports the potential advantage of treating older trauma patients at centers specializing in geriatric trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic and epidemiologic study, level III.

Incremental Cost of Emergency Versus Elective Surgery.

OBJECTIVE To determine hospital costs and the adjusted risk of death associated with emergent versus elective surgery. BACKGROUND Emergency surgery has a higher cost and worse outcomes compared with elective surgery. However, no national estimates of the excess burden of emergency surgery exist. METHODS Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) data from 2001 to 2010 were analyzed. Patients aged 18 years or older who underwent abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, coronary artery bypass graft, or colon resection for neoplasm were included. Using generalized linear models with propensity scores, cost differences for emergent versus elective admission were calculated for each procedure. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to investigate the adjusted odds of mortality comparing elective and emergent cases. Discharge-level weights were applied to analyses. RESULTS A total of 621,925 patients, representing a weighted population of 3,057,443, were included. The adjusted mean cost difference for emergent versus elective care was

Association between intentional injury and long-term survival after trauma

8741.22 (30% increase) for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair,

The hazards of off-road motor sports: are four wheels better than two?

5309.78 (17% increase) for coronary artery bypass graft, and

Unconscious race and social class bias among acute care surgical clinicians and clinical treatment decisions

7813.53 (53% increase) for colon resection. If 10% of the weighted estimates of emergency procedures had been performed electively, the cost benefit would have been nearly

Unconscious Race and Class Biases among Registered Nurses: Vignette-Based Study Using Implicit Association Testing.

1 billion, at

Socioeconomic disparity in inpatient mortality after traumatic injury in adults.

996,169,160 (95% confidence interval [CI],