Search

Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients frequently require care through emergency departments (ED) due to lack of access or symptom acuity, however, the frequency and implications of this occurrence have not been delineated.To determine the association between emergency department admission of HNC surgery with length of stay (LOS) and total costs (TC).A cohort of 12,920 adult HNC patients admitted to acute care hospitals receiving ablative surgery during index admission was identified using the New York State Inpatient Database from 2006 to 2016. Outcomes included LOS, TC, 90-day complications, and inpatient mortality.Eight percent of the cohort was admitted through the ED, which increased over the study period from 6.52% (95% CI: 5.05-7.99) to 17.0% (95% CI: 14.9-19.1). ED admission was associated with a longer LOS (11 days longer, 95% CI 10.3-11.7) and higher mean TC ($43,197) versus non-ED admission ($19,010), with a mean difference of $24,191 (95% CI 20,713-27,669). After controlling for covariates, ED admission was associated with an 81.6% (95% CI 76.8-86.5) and 80.4% (95% CI 70.5-90.8) increase in LOS and TC, respectively, and decreased survival with a hazard ratio of 1.97 (95% CI 1.60-2.42).Rates of ED admission for HNC diagnoses requiring surgical intervention during index admission are rising and associated with longer LOS higher TC, more postoperative complications, and increased inpatient mortality after accounting for patient and facility differences. Striving for high-quality HNC cancer care demands addressing barriers to care that contribute to patients relying on the ED for access.

Objectives/hypothesis Language barriers may impact family experience, which is a key measure of healthcare quality. We compared family satisfaction between Spanish-speaking families (SSF) and English-speaking families (ESF) in pediatric otolaryngology. Study design Retrospective cohort study. Methods Responses from the Family Experience Survey (FES), a hospital quality benchmarking survey, were analyzed from 2017 to 2019 at one academic pediatric otolaryngology practice. Question responses were compared between SSF versus ESF using mixed effect logistic regression models, adjusting for patient age, medical complexity, and insurance. Results A total of 4,964 FES survey responses were included (14% SSF). In multivariate analysis adjusting for age, medical complexity, and insurance, SSF were 1.7 times more likely than ESF to rate their provider with the highest rating (i.e. 9-10/10; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-2.22). However, SSF were less likely than ESF to provide the highest rating on many individual aspects of care, including whether providers explained things intelligibly (odds ratio [OR] 0.43, 95% CI 0.25-0.74), listened carefully (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.28-0.47), knew their medical child's history (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.44-0.64), provided understandable information (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16-0.83), spent sufficient time with them (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.31-0.48), allowed them to discuss their questions (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.47-0.70), or had enough input in their children's' care (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26-0.80). Conclusions In a large cohort of pediatric otolaryngology patients, SSF rated many individual aspects of their child's care less positively compared to ESF, despite rating their provider highly. Further research is needed to explore the reasons for these differences and how they can be improved. Level of evidence 4 Laryngoscope, 131:E2393-E2401, 2021.