Key result
Voluntary hospital care is linked to 100% vs 41% higher indicated cardiac catheterization rates.
Why the study?
The impact of social factors on the content of care for ischemic heart disease patients at different hospital settings was unclear.
Observational
Yes
Absolute Event Rate: 100% vs 41%
Disparities in indicated catheterization rates between hospital types merit attention; leaves open whether social factors drive care differences in ischemic heart disease.
To assess the impact of social factors on the content of care, panels of patients with ischemic heart disease at a public and its affiliated voluntary hospital were followed up through their acute hospitalizations and 3 months after discharge. Data were collected from firsthand observation of rounds, chart review, and a 3-month patient follow-up survey. Among patients for whom cardiac catheterization was indicated, 100% from the voluntary hospital underwent this procedure compared with 41% from the public institution. For patients for whom exercise stress testing was indicated, 90% from the voluntary hospital compared with 50% from the public institution underwent the procedure. Factors observed to contribute to these patterns emanated from the hospital setting as well as from the patients' social environment, including difficulties in arranging transfers for procedures, obstacles to coordinating inpatient and ambulatory care, and patient problems in keeping outpatient appointments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
M. J. Yedidia (1992) conducted an observational in ischemic heart disease. Voluntary hospital care vs. Public hospital care was evaluated on Cardiac catheterization among patients for whom it was indicated. Treatment at a voluntary hospital compared to a public hospital was associated with higher rates of indicated cardiac catheterization (100% vs 41%) and exercise stress testing (90% vs 50%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: