Search

Background: Timely receipt of surgery should be available for all patients. Few studies have examined differences in the treatment of symptomatic cholelithiasis (SC), a common surgical problem, based on race/ethnicity or insurance status. This study aimed to identify differences in repeat emergency department (ED) use and wait time to cholecystectomy for SC., Study Design: Patients discharged from the ED with SC between July 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017, were identified from California administrative databases and followed for 1 year. Repeat ED use and wait time to elective and nonelective cholecystectomy after ED discharge were examined using logistic and negative binomial regression models., Results: The final cohort analyzed 13,596 patients who underwent cholecystectomy within 1 year from index ED visit for SC. In adjusted analysis, non-Hispanic Black patients had higher odds for repeat ED use for biliary-related conditions before elective surgery and experienced longer waits for cholecystectomy (across several measures of wait times) compared with non-Hispanic White patients. Similar findings were seen for Medicaid and self-pay compared with privately insured patients. For example, self-pay patients had more than double the odds of experiencing repeat ED use while waiting for elective cholecystectomy compared with privately insured patients (adjusted odds ratio 2.49, 95% CI 1.88-3.31)., Conclusion: Patients with SC receiving cholecystectomy within 1 year from index ED visit were more likely to have repeat ED use and longer waits to surgery based on their race/ethnicity and insurance status, even after adjusting for other measures of access. We identify a vulnerable population at risk for differences in treatment for a common surgical pathology., (Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Objective: Hospitalizations that occur shortly after emergency department (ED) discharge may reveal opportunities to improve ED or follow-up care. There currently is limited, population-level information about such events. We identify hospital- and visit-level predictors of bounce-back admissions, defined as 7-day unscheduled hospital admissions after ED discharge., Methods: Using the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development files, we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of adult (aged >18 years) ED visits resulting in discharge in 2007. Candidate predictors included index hospital structural characteristics such as ownership, teaching affiliation, trauma status, and index ED size, along with index visit patient characteristics of demographic information, day of service, against medical advice or eloped disposition, insurance, and ED primary discharge diagnosis. We fit a multivariable, hierarchic logistic regression to account for clustering of ED visits by hospitals., Results: The study cohort contained a total of 5,035,833 visits to 288 facilities in 2007. Bounce-back admission within 7 days occurred in 130,526 (2.6%) visits and was associated with Medicaid (odds ratio [OR] 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.40 to 1.45) or Medicare insurance (OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.50 to 1.55) and a disposition of leaving against medical advice or before the evaluation was complete (OR 1.90; 95% CI 1.89 to 2.0). The 3 most common age-adjusted index ED discharge diagnoses associated with a bounce-back admission were chronic renal disease, not end stage (OR 3.3; 95% CI 2.8 to 3.8), end-stage renal disease (OR 2.9; 95% CI 2.4 to 3.6), and congestive heart failure (OR 2.5; 95% CI 2.3 to 2.6). Hospital characteristics associated with a higher bounce-back admission rate were for-profit status (OR 1.2; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.3) and teaching affiliation (OR 1.2; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.3)., Conclusion: We found 2.6% of discharged patients from California EDs to have a bounce-back admission within 7 days. We identified vulnerable populations, such as the very old and the use of Medicaid insurance, and chronic or end-stage renal disease as being especially at risk. Our findings suggest that quality improvement efforts focus on high-risk individuals and that the disposition plan of patients consider vulnerable populations., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)