Search

Background: Housing status impacts outcomes after elective and emergent operations but has not been well studied in the emergency general surgery population. This study investigates the impact of housing status on complications and 30-day follow-up, emergency department visits, and readmissions after emergency general surgery admission., Methods: We conducted a retrospective matched cohort study of adult patients admitted with an emergency general surgery diagnosis at an urban, safety net hospital from 2014 to 2021. Patients were matched 1 to 2 on the basis of age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, diagnosis, and operative status. The primary exposure was unhoused status. The primary outcome was in-hospital complications. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit admission, extended length of stay, follow-up attendance, and emergency department visit or unplanned readmission within 30 days. Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used to determine the association between housing status and the outcomes of interest., Results: The study included 531 patients (177 unhoused, 354 housed). There were no significant differences in complications, intensive care unit admissions, or extended length of stay. Unhoused patients had lower odds of outpatient follow-up (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.85, P = .008) and higher odds of emergency department utilization (odds ratio, 2.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.78-4.14, P < .001) and readmission (odds ratio, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-3.19, P = .02)., Conclusion: Compared with housed patients, unhoused patients with emergency general surgery conditions have lower rates of outpatient follow-up and greater odds of using the emergency department and being readmitted within 30 days of discharge. This points to a need for dedicated posthospitalization care and creative methods of engaging with this population., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest/Disclosure The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We sought to compare post-discharge outcomes and healthcare utilization between English-speaking non-Hispanic White (NHW), English-speaking Hispanic/Latinx (ESHL), and Spanish-speaking Hispanic/Latinx (SSHL) survivors of traumatic injury., Background: While there is evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare utilization and post-discharge outcomes after injury, the role of English language proficiency in these disparities remains unclear., Methods: Moderate to severely injured adults from three level-1 trauma centers completed an interview in English or Spanish between 6-12 months post-injury to assess physical health-related quality of life (SF-12-PCS), return to work, and post-discharge healthcare utilization. The language used in the interview was used as a proxy for English-language proficiency, and participants were categorized as either NHW (reference), ESHL, or SSHL. Multivariable regression models estimated independent associations between language and race/ethnicity with SF-12-PCS, return to work, and post-discharge healthcare utilization outcomes., Results: 3,304 injury survivors were followed: 2,977 (90%) NHW, 203 (6%) ESHL, and 124 (4%) SSHL. In adjusted analyses, no significant differences were observed between ESHL and NHW injury survivors for any outcomes at 6-12 months post-injury. However, SSHL injury survivors exhibited a lower mean SF-12-PCS (41.6 vs. 38.5), -3.07 (95% CI=-5.47, -0.66; P=0.012), decreased odds of returning to work (OR=0.47; CI=0.27 to 0.81; P=0.007), and were less likely to engage in non-injury related outpatient visits, such as primary care visits (OR=0.45; 95% CI 0.28, 0.73; P=0.001), compared to NHW patients., Conclusion: Hispanic/Latinx injury survivors have worse post-discharge outcomes and lower non-injury-related healthcare utilization than NHW if they have limited English-language proficiency. Addressing LEP-related barriers to care could help mitigate outcome and healthcare utilization disparities among Hispanic/Latinx injury survivors., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Nonoperative management (NOM) of uncomplicated appendicitis is increasingly common. Effectiveness of NOM has been studied by identifying patients via International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9/ICD-10 codes for uncomplicated appendicitis and no code for appendectomy. We sought to assess the accuracy of such administrative definitions., Methods: We retrospectively identified patients with ICD-9/ICD-10 codes for appendicitis at five sites across the United States. Initial management plan and clinical severity were recorded by trained abstractors. We identified a gold standard cohort of patients with surgeon-diagnosed uncomplicated appendicitis and planned NOM. We defined two administrative cohorts with ICD-9/ICD-10 codes for uncomplicated appendicitis and either no surgery during initial admission (definition #1) or no surgery on day 0-1 of admission (definition #2). We compared each definition to the gold standard., Results: Among 1224 patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, 72 (5.9%) underwent planned NOM. NOM patients were older (median [Q1-Q3] of 37 [27-56] versus 32 [25-44] y) and less frequently male (51.4% versus 54.9%), White (54.1% versus 67.6%), and privately insured (38.9% versus 50.2%) than patients managed operatively. Definition #1 had sensitivity of 0.81 and positive predictive value of 0.87 for NOM of uncomplicated appendicitis. Definition #2 had sensitivity of 0.83 and positive predictive value of 0.72. The gold standard cohort had a true failure/recurrence rate of 23.6%, compared with apparent rates of 25.4% and 39.8%, respectively., Conclusions: Administrative definitions are prone to misclassification in identifying planned NOM of uncomplicated appendicitis. This likely impacts outcomes in studies using administrative databases. Investigators should disclose how misclassification may affect results and select an administrative definition that optimally balances sensitivity and specificity for their research question., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Immigrants in the United States face unique challenges in accessing healthcare. There have been several studies highlighting some of the barriers that this population faces; however, there is still a lack of robust research on this patient population in the context of surgical access and outcomes. Immigration status is a protected variable that is not documented in patient charts for a myriad of reasons. This makes it incredibly difficult to identify this population in the first place, resulting in a decreased ability to study this group retrospectively and, therefore, restricting the quantity and quality of research into these vulnerable patients. This article aims to provide a call to action for medical professionals to develop ways to accurately document immigration status in medical records while simultaneously assuaging the concerns related to this documentation and its implications on patient care and confidentiality., (Copyright © 2024 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)