Processes of care and outcomes for homeless patients hospitalised for cardiovascular conditions at safety-net versus non-safety-net hospitals: cross-sectional study. Issue 4 (8th April 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Miyawaki, Atsushi; Khullar, Dhruv; Tsugawa, Yusuke
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 11:Issue 4(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-04-08
• Subjects: quality in health care -- cardiology -- social medicine; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046959
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: Evidence suggests that homeless patients experience worse quality of care and poorer health outcomes across a range of medical conditions. It remains unclear, however, whether differences in care delivery at safety-net versus non-safety-net hospitals explain these disparities. We aimed to investigate whether homeless versus non-homeless adults hospitalised for cardiovascular conditions (acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke) experience differences in care delivery and health outcomes at safety-net versus non-safety-net hospitals. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Data including all hospital admissions in four states (Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New York) in 2014. Participants: We analysed 167 105 adults aged 18 years or older hospitalised for cardiovascular conditions (age mean=64.5 years; 75 361 (45.1%) women; 2123 (1.3%) homeless hospitalisations) discharged from 348 hospitals. Outcome measures: Risk-adjusted diagnostic and therapeutic procedure and in-hospital mortality, after adjusting for patient characteristics and state and quarter fixed effects. Results: At safety-net hospitals, homeless adults hospitalised for AMI were less likely to receive coronary angiogram (adjusted OR (aOR), 0.42; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.50; p<0.001), percutaneous coronary intervention (aOR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.62; p<0.001) and coronary artery bypass graft (aOR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.71; p<0.01) compared with non-homeless adults. Homeless patients treated for strokes at safety-net hospitals were less likely to receive cerebral arteriography (aOR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.34; p<0.001), but were as likely to receive thrombolysis therapy. At non-safety-net hospitals, we found no evidence that the probability of receiving these procedures differed between homeless and non-homeless adults hospitalised for AMI or stroke. Finally, there were no differences in in-hospital mortality rates for homeless versus non-homeless patients at either safety-net or non-safety-net hospitals. Conclusion: Disparities in receipt of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for homeless patients with cardiovascular conditions were observed only at safety-net hospitals. However, we found no evidence that these differences influenced in-hospital mortality markedly.