| 1. |
- de Jager, Elzerie, et al.
(författare)
-
Disparities in surgical outcomes for low socioeconomic status patients in Australia.
- 2022
-
Ingår i: ANZ journal of surgery. - : Wiley. - 1445-2197 .- 1445-1433. ; 92:5, s. 1026-1032
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- There are disparities in surgical outcomes for patients of low socioeconomic status globally, including in countries with universal healthcare systems. There is limited data on the impact of low socioeconomic status on surgical outcomes in Australia. This study examines surgical outcomes by both self-reported unemployment and neighbourhood level socioeconomic status in Australia.A retrospective administrative data review was conducted at a tertiary care centre over a 10-year period (2008-2018) including all adult surgical patients. Multivariable logistic regression adjusting for year, age, sex and Charlson Comorbidity Index was performed.106197 patients underwent a surgical procedure in the decade examined. The overall adverse event rates were mortality (1.13%), total postoperative complications (10.9%), failure to rescue (0.75%) and return to theatre (4.31%). Following multivariable testing, unemployed and low socioeconomic patients had a higher risk of postoperative mortality (OR 2.06 (1.50-2.82), OR 1.37 (1.15-1.64)), all complications (OR 1.43 (1.31-1.56), OR 1.21 (1.14-1.28)), failure to rescue (OR 2.03 (1.39-2.95), OR 1.38 (1.11-1.72)) and return to theatre (OR 1.42 (1.27-1.59), OR 1.24 (1.14-1.36)) (P<0.005 for all).Despite universal healthcare, there are disparities in surgical adverse events for patients of low socioeconomic status in Australia. Disparities in surgical outcomes can stem from three facets: a patient's access to healthcare (the severity of disease at the time of presentation), variation in perioperative care delivery, and social determinants of health. Further work is required to pinpoint why these disparities are present and to evaluate the impact of strategies that aim to reduce disparities.
|
|
| 2. |
- de Jager, Elzerie, et al.
(författare)
-
Emergency to Elective Surgery Ratio as a Disparities Sensitive Surgical Access Metric, A Study of Low Socioeconomic Status in Australia
- 2022
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Surgery. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0364-2313 .- 1432-2323. ; 46:4, s. 776-83
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The emergency to elective surgery ratio is a proposed indicator for global access to surgical care. There is a well-established link between low socioeconomic status and increased morbidity and mortality. This study examined the emergency to elective surgery ratios for low socioeconomic patients utilising both self-reported unemployment and the neighbourhood Index of Economic Resources (IER). Methods: A retrospective study was conducted at a regional tertiary care centre in Australia, including data over a ten-year period (2008–2018). Multivariable logistic regression adjusting for year, age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, rurality, and if surgeries were due to trauma or injuries, was performed. Results: 84,014 patients underwent a surgical procedure in the period examined; 29.0% underwent emergency surgery, 5.31% were unemployed, and 26.6% lived in neighbourhoods with the lowest IER. Following multivariable testing, the rate of emergency surgery was higher for unemployed patients (OR 1.42 [1.32–1.52], p < 0.001), and for those from the lowest IER (OR 1.13 [1.08–1.19], p < 0.001). For unemployed patients, this disparity increased during the study period (OR 1.32 [2008–2012], OR 1.48 [2013–2018]). When stratified by specialty, most (7/11) had significant disparities for unemployed patients: Cardiac/Cardiothoracic, Otolaryngology, Maxillofacial/Dental, Obstetrics/Gynaecology, Orthopaedics, Plastics, and Vascular surgery. Conclusions: Unemployed Australians and those residing in the most disadvantaged IER neighbourhoods had higher emergency to elective surgery rates. The disparity in emergency to elective surgery rates for unemployed patients was found in most surgical specialties and increased over the period examined. This suggests a widespread and potentially increasing disparity in access to surgical care for patients of socioeconomic disadvantage, specifically for those who are unemployed.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Goralnick, Eric, et al.
(författare)
-
Defining a Research Agenda for Layperson Prehospital Hemorrhage Control A Consensus Statement
- 2020
-
Ingår i: JAMA Network Open. - : AMER MEDICAL ASSOC. - 2574-3805. ; 3:7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Importance Trauma is the leading cause of death for US individuals younger than 45 years, and uncontrolled hemorrhage is a major cause of trauma mortality. The US military’s medical advancements in the field of prehospital hemorrhage control have reduced battlefield mortality by 44%. However, despite support from many national health care organizations, no integrated approach to research has been made regarding implementation, epidemiology, education, and logistics of prehospital hemorrhage control by layperson immediate responders in the civilian sector.Objective To create a national research agenda to help guide future work for prehospital hemorrhage control by laypersons.Evidence Review The 2-day, in-person, National Stop the Bleed (STB) Research Consensus Conference was conducted on February 27 to 28, 2019, to identify and achieve consensus on research gaps. Participants included (1) subject matter experts, (2) professional society–designated leaders, (3) representatives from the federal government, and (4) representatives from private foundations. Before the conference, participants were provided a scoping review on layperson prehospital hemorrhage control. A 3-round modified Delphi consensus process was conducted to determine high-priority research questions. The top items, with median rating of 8 or more on a Likert scale of 1 to 9 points, were identified and became part of the national STB research agenda.Findings Forty-five participants attended the conference. In round 1, participants submitted 487 research questions. After deduplication and sorting, 162 questions remained across 5 a priori–defined themes. Two subsequent rounds of rating generated consensus on 113 high-priority, 27 uncertain-priority, and 22 low-priority questions. The final prioritized research agenda included the top 24 questions, including 8 for epidemiology and effectiveness, 4 for materials, 9 for education, 2 for global health, and 1 for health policy.Conclusions and Relevance The National STB Research Consensus Conference identified and prioritized a national research agenda to support laypersons in reducing preventable deaths due to life-threatening hemorrhage. Investigators and funding agencies can use this agenda to guide their future work and funding priorities.
|
|
