We have located links that may give you full text access.
How Safe Is the Safety Net? Comparison of Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy at a Safety-Net Hospital Using the NSQIP Database.
Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2018 April
BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest that surgical outcomes at hospitals caring for low-income, vulnerable populations are suboptimal compared with outcomes from nonsafety-net hospitals. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to compare outcomes for patients who underwent an Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy at a safety-net hospital with the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database.
STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of consecutive patients who underwent an Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy, between September 2013 and January 2017, at a single safety-net hospital. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared with the 2013 to 2015 NSQIP database. Continuous variables were compared using Student's t-test, and categorical variables were analyzed using chi-square tests. Values of p < 0.05 were considered significant.
RESULTS: We identified 78 patients from the safety-net hospital and 1,825 patients in the NSQIP database who underwent an Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. Baseline characteristics were similar, except the safety-net hospital patients were more likely to have COPD (19.2% vs 8.1%; p = 0.001) and be current smokers (42.3% vs 26.0%; p = 0.001); patients in the NSQIP group had a higher BMI (28 kg/m2 vs 26 kg/m2 ; p = 0.001). There were no differences between groups for mortality, readmission, discharge destination, or mean operative time. Safety-net hospital patients had significantly fewer complications (16.7% vs 33.3%; p = 0.003), fewer reoperations (6.4% vs 14.5%; p = 0.046), and shorter hospital length of stay (10.3 vs 13.1 days; p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent an Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy at a safety-net hospital had fewer complications and reoperations, and a shorter hospital length of stay compared with a national cohort. These findings illustrate the value of clinical pathways in optimizing the patient outcomes at safety-net hospitals and providing excellent care to their vulnerable patient population.
STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of consecutive patients who underwent an Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy, between September 2013 and January 2017, at a single safety-net hospital. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared with the 2013 to 2015 NSQIP database. Continuous variables were compared using Student's t-test, and categorical variables were analyzed using chi-square tests. Values of p < 0.05 were considered significant.
RESULTS: We identified 78 patients from the safety-net hospital and 1,825 patients in the NSQIP database who underwent an Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. Baseline characteristics were similar, except the safety-net hospital patients were more likely to have COPD (19.2% vs 8.1%; p = 0.001) and be current smokers (42.3% vs 26.0%; p = 0.001); patients in the NSQIP group had a higher BMI (28 kg/m2 vs 26 kg/m2 ; p = 0.001). There were no differences between groups for mortality, readmission, discharge destination, or mean operative time. Safety-net hospital patients had significantly fewer complications (16.7% vs 33.3%; p = 0.003), fewer reoperations (6.4% vs 14.5%; p = 0.046), and shorter hospital length of stay (10.3 vs 13.1 days; p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent an Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy at a safety-net hospital had fewer complications and reoperations, and a shorter hospital length of stay compared with a national cohort. These findings illustrate the value of clinical pathways in optimizing the patient outcomes at safety-net hospitals and providing excellent care to their vulnerable patient population.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app