The interaction between geriatric and neighborhood vulnerability: Delineating prehospital risk among older adult emergency general surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: When presenting for emergency general surgery (EGS) care, older adults frequently experience increased risk of adverse outcomes owing to factors related to age ("geriatric vulnerability") and the social determinants of health unique to the places in which they live ("neighborhood vulnerability"). Little is known about how such factors collectively influence adverse outcomes. We sought to explore how the interaction between geriatric and neighborhood vulnerability influences EGS outcomes among older adults. METHODS: Older adults, 65 years or older, hospitalized with an AAST-defined EGS condition were identified in the 2016 to 2019, 2021 Florida State Inpatient Database. Latent variable models combined the influence of patient age, multimorbidity, and Hospital Frailty Risk Score into a single metric of "geriatric vulnerability." Variations in geriatric vulnerability were then compared across differences in "neighborhood vulnerability" as measured by variations in Area Deprivation Index, Social Vulnerability Index, and their corresponding subthemes (e.g., access to transportation). RESULTS: A total of 448,968 older adults were included. For patients living in the least vulnerable neighborhoods, increasing geriatric vulnerability resulted in up to six times greater risk of death (30-day risk-adjusted hazards ratio [HR], 6.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.49-8.89). The effect was more than doubled among patients living in the most vulnerable neighborhoods, where increasing geriatric vulnerability resulted in up to 15 times greater risk of death (30-day risk-adjusted HR, 15.12; 95% CI, 12.57-18.19). When restricted to racial/ethnic minority patients, the multiplicative effect was four-times as high, resulting in corresponding 30-day HRs for mortality of 11.53 (95% CI, 4.51-29.44) versus 40.67 (95% CI, 22.73-72.78). Similar patterns were seen for death within 365 days. CONCLUSION: Both geriatric and neighborhood vulnerability have been shown to affect prehospital risk among older patients. The results of this study build on that work, presenting the first in-depth look at the powerful multiplicative interaction between these two factors. The results show that where a patient resides can fundamentally alter expected outcomes for EGS care such that otherwise less vulnerable patients become functionally equivalent to those who are, at baseline, more aged, more frail, and more sick. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Changes in Older Adult Trauma Quality When Evaluated Using Longer-Term Outcomes vs In-Hospital Mortality.

Importance: Lack of knowledge about longer-term outcomes remains a critical blind spot for trauma systems. Recent efforts have expanded trauma quality evaluation to include a broader array of postdischarge quality metrics. It remains unknown how such quality metrics should be used. Objective: To examine the utility of implementing recommended postdischarge quality metrics as a composite score and ascertain how composite score performance compares with that of in-hospital mortality for evaluating associations with hospital-level factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This national hospital-level quality assessment evaluated hospital-level care quality using 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims of older adults (aged ≥65 years) hospitalized with primary diagnoses of trauma, hip fracture, and severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. Hospitals with annual volumes encompassing 10 or more of each diagnosis were included. The data analysis was performed between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022. Exposures: Reliability-adjusted quality metrics used to calculate composite scores included hospital-specific performance on mortality, readmission, and patients' average number of healthy days at home (HDAH) within 30, 90, and 365 days among older adults hospitalized with all forms of trauma, hip fracture, and severe TBI. Main Outcomes and Measures: Associations with hospital-level factors were compared using volume-weighted multivariable logistic regression. Results: A total of 573 554 older adults (mean [SD] age, 83.1 [8.3] years; 64.8% female; 35.2% male) from 1234 hospitals were included. All 27 reliability-adjusted postdischarge quality metrics significantly contributed to the composite score. The most important drivers were 30- and 90-day readmission, patients' average number of HDAH within 365 days, and 365-day mortality among all trauma patients. Associations with hospital-level factors revealed predominantly anticipated trends when older adult trauma quality was evaluated using composite scores (eg, worst performance was associated with decreased older adult trauma volume [odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.88-0.90]). Results for in-hospital mortality showed inverted associations for each considered hospital-level factor and suggested that compared with nontrauma centers, level 1 trauma centers had a 17 times higher risk-adjusted odds of worst (highest quantile) vs best (lowest quintile) performance (odds ratio, 17.08; 95% CI, 16.17-18.05). Conclusions and Relevance: The study results challenge historical notions about the adequacy of in-hospital mortality as the single measure of older adult trauma quality and suggest that, when it comes to older adults, decisions about how quality is evaluated can profoundly alter understandings of what constitutes best practices for care. Composite scores appear to offer a promising means by which postdischarge quality metrics could be used.

Reconceptualizing high-quality emergency general surgery care: Non-mortality-based quality metrics enable meaningful and consistent assessment.

BACKGROUND: Ongoing efforts to promote quality-improvement in emergency general surgery (EGS) have made substantial strides but lack clear definitions of what constitutes "high-quality" EGS care. To address this concern, we developed a novel set of five non-mortality-based quality metrics broadly applicable to the care of all EGS patients and sought to discern whether (1) they can be used to identify groups of best-performing EGS hospitals, (2) results are similar for simple versus complex EGS severity in both adult (18-64 years) and older adult (≥65 years) populations, and (3) best performance is associated with differences in hospital-level factors. METHODS: Patients hospitalized with 1-of-16 American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-defined EGS conditions were identified in the 2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. They were stratified by age/severity into four cohorts: simple adults, complex adults, simple older adults, complex older adults. Within each cohort, risk-adjusted hierarchical models were used to calculate condition-specific risk-standardized quality metrics. K-means cluster analysis identified hospitals with similar performance, and multinomial regression identified predictors of resultant "best/average/worst" EGS care. RESULTS: A total of 1,130,496 admissions from 984 hospitals were included (40.6% simple adults, 13.5% complex adults, 39.5% simple older adults, and 6.4% complex older adults). Within each cohort, K-means cluster analysis identified three groups ("best/average/worst"). Cluster assignment was highly conserved with 95.3% of hospitals assigned to the same cluster in each cohort. It was associated with consistently best/average/worst performance across differences in outcomes (5×) and EGS conditions (16×). When examined for associations with hospital-level factors, best-performing hospitals were those with the largest EGS volume, greatest extent of patient frailty, and most complicated underlying patient case-mix. CONCLUSION: Use of non-mortality-based quality metrics appears to offer a needed promising means of evaluating high-quality EGS care. The results underscore the importance of accounting for outcomes applicable to all EGS patients when designing quality-improvement initiatives and suggest that, given the consistency of best-performing hospitals, natural EGS centers-of-excellence could exist. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Emergency Department Query for Patient-Centered Approaches to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity : The EQUALITY Study.

Importance: The Institute of Medicine and The Joint Commission recommend routine documentation of patients' sexual orientation in health care settings. Currently, very few health care systems collect these data since patient preferences and health care professionals' support regarding collection of data about patient sexual orientation are unknown. Objective: To identify the optimal patient-centered approach to collect sexual orientation data in the emergency department (ED) in the Emergency Department Query for Patient-Centered Approaches to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity study. Design, Setting, and Participants: An exploratory, sequential, mixed-methods design was used first to evaluate qualitative interviews conducted in the Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC, areas. Fifty-three patients and 26 health care professionals participated in the qualitative interviews. Interviews were followed by a national online survey, in which 1516 (potential) patients (244 lesbian, 289 gay, 179 bisexual, and 804 straight) and 429 ED health care professionals (209 physicians and 220 nurses) participated. Survey participants were recruited using random digit dialing and address-based sampling techniques. Main Outcomes and Measures: Qualitative interviews were used to obtain the perspectives of patients and health care professionals on sexual orientation data collection, and a quantitative survey was used to gauge patients' and health care professionals' willingness to provide or obtain sexual orientation information. Results: Mean (SD) age of patient and clinician participants was 49 (16.4) and 51 (9.4) years, respectively. Qualitative interviews suggested that patients were less likely to refuse to provide sexual orientation than providers expected. Nationally, 154 patients (10.3%) reported that they would refuse to provide sexual orientation; however, 333 (77.8%) of all clinicians thought patients would refuse to provide sexual orientation. After adjustment for demographic characteristics, only bisexual patients had increased odds of refusing to provide sexual orientation compared with heterosexual patients (odds ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.26-4.56). Conclusions and Relevance: Patients and health care professionals have discordant views on routine collection of data on sexual orientation. A minority of patients would refuse to provide sexual orientation. Implementation of a standardized, patient-centered approach for routine collection of sexual orientation data is required on a national scale to help to identify and address health disparities among lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations.

Risks, Benefits, and Importance of Collecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data in Healthcare Settings: A Multi-Method Analysis of Patient and Provider Perspectives.

PURPOSE: Research suggests that LGBT populations experience barriers to healthcare. Organizations such as the Institute of Medicine recommend routine documentation of sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI) in healthcare, to reduce LGBT disparities. We explore patient views regarding the importance of SO/GI collection, and patient and provider views on risks and benefits of routine SO/GI collection in various settings. METHODS: We surveyed LGBT/non-LGBT patients and providers on their views on SO/GI collection. Weighted data were analyzed with descriptive statistics; content analysis was conducted with open-ended responses. RESULTS: One-half of the 1516 patients and 60% of 429 providers were female; 64% of patients and 71% of providers were White. Eighty percent of providers felt that collecting SO data would offend patients, whereas only 11% of patients reported that they would be offended. Patients rated it as more important for primary care providers to know the SO of all patients compared with emergency department (ED) providers knowing the SO of all patients (41.3% vs. 31.6%; P < 0.001). Patients commonly perceived individualized care as an SO/GI disclosure benefit, whereas providers perceived patient-provider interaction improvement as the main benefit. Patient comments cited bias/discrimination risk most frequently (49.7%; N = 781), whereas provider comments cited patient discomfort/offense most frequently (54.5%; N = 433). CONCLUSION: Patients see the importance of SO/GI more in primary care than ED settings. However, many LGBT patients seek ED care due to factors including uninsurance; therefore, the ED may represent an initial point of contact for SO/GI collection. Therefore, patient-centered approaches to collecting SO/GI are needed. Patients and providers differed in perceived risks and benefits to routine SO/GI collection. Provider training in LGBT health may address patients' bias/discrimination concerns, and ultimately reduce LGBT health disparities.

Is It Okay To Ask: Transgender Patient Perspectives on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Collection in Healthcare.

OBJECTIVE: The National Academy of Medicine and Joint Commission recommend routine documentation of sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI) in healthcare to address lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) health disparities. We explored transgender patient-reported views on the importance on SO/GI collection, their willingness to disclose, and their perceived facilitators of SO/GI collection in primary care and emergency department (ED) settings. METHODS: We recruited a national sample of self-identified transgender patients. Participants completed demographic questions, survey questions, and free-response comments regarding their views on SO/GI collection. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics; inductive content analysis was conducted with open-ended responses. RESULTS: Patients mostly self-identified as male gender (54.5%), white (58.4%), and SO other than heterosexual or LGB (33.7%; N = 101). Patients felt that it was more important for primary care providers to know their GI than SO (89.1% vs. 57%; p < 0.001); there was no difference among reported importance for ED providers to know the patients' SO versus GI. Females were more likely than males to report medical relevance to chief complaint as a facilitator to SO disclosure (89.1% vs. 80%; p = 0.02) and less likely to identify routine collection from all patients as a facilitator to GI disclosure (67.4% vs. 78.2%; p = 0.09). Qualitatively, many patients reported that medical relevance to chief complaint and an LGBT-friendly environment would increase willingness to disclose their SO/GI. Patients also reported need for educating providers in LGBT health prior to implementing routine SO/GI collection. CONCLUSIONS: Patients see the importance of providing GI more than SO to providers; nonetheless they are willing to disclose SO/GI in general.. Findings also suggest that gender differences may exist in facilitators of SO/GI disclosure. Given the underrepresentation of transgender patients in healthcare, it is crucial for providers to address their concerns with SO/GI disclosure, which include LGBT education for medical staff and provision of a safe environment.

Educating the surgeon-scientist: A qualitative study evaluating challenges and barriers toward becoming an academically successful surgeon.

BACKGROUND: The advancement of surgical science relies on educating new generations of surgeon-scientists. Career development awards (K Awards) from the National Institutes of Health, often considered a marker of early academic success, are one way physician-scientists may foster skills through a mentored research experience. This study aimed to develop a conceptual framework to understand institutional support and other factors leading to a K Award. METHODS: A national, qualitative study was conducted with academic surgeons. Participants included 15 K Awardees and 12 surgery department Chairs. Purposive sampling ensured a diverse range of experiences. Semistructured, in-depth telephone interviews were conducted. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, and 2 reviewers analyzed the transcripts using Grounded Theory methodology. RESULTS: Participants described individual and institutional factors contributing to success. K Awardees cited personal factors such as perseverance and team leadership skills. Chairs described the K Awardee as an institutional "investment" requiring protected time for research, financial support, and mentorship. Both K Awardees and Chairs identified a number of challenges unique to the surgeon-scientist, including financial strains and competing clinical demands. CONCLUSION: Institutional support for surgeons pursuing K Awards is a complex investment with significant initial costs to the department. Chairs act as stewards of institutional resources and support those surgeon-scientists most likely to be successful. Although the K Award pathway is one way to develop surgeon-scientists, financial burdens and challenges may limit its usefulness. These findings, however, may better prepare young surgeons to develop career plans and identify new mechanisms for academic productivity.

Never giving up: outcomes and presentation of emergency general surgery in geriatric octogenarian and nonagenarian patients.

BACKGROUND: Aging of the population necessitates consideration of the increasing number of older adults requiring emergency care. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes and presentation of octogenarian and/or nonagenarian emergency general surgery (EGS) patients with younger adults. METHODS: Based on a standardized definition of EGS, patients in the 2007 to 2011 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-Nationwide Inpatient Sample were queried for primary EGS diagnoses. Included patients were categorized into older (≥80 years) vs younger (<80 years) adults based on a marked increase in mortality around aged 80 years. Using propensity scores, risk-adjusted differences in major morbidity, mortality, length of stay (LOS), and cost were compared. RESULTS: Of 3,707,465 included patients, 17.2% (n = 637,588) were ≥80 years. Relative to younger adults, older patients most frequently presented for gastrointestinal-bleeding (odds ratio [95% confidence intervals]: 2.81 [2.79 to 2.82]) and gastrostomy care (2.46 [2.39 to 2.53]). Despite higher odds of mortality (1.67 [1.63 to 1.69]), older adults exhibited lower risk-adjusted odds of morbidity (.87 [.86 to .88]), shorter LOS (4.50 vs 5.14 days), and lower total hospital costs ($10,700 vs $12,500). CONCLUSIONS: Octogenarian and/or nonagenarian patients present differently than younger adults. Reductions in complications, LOS, and cost among surviving older adults allude to a "survivorship tendency" to never give up, despite collectively higher mortality risk.

Setting a National Agenda for Surgical Disparities Research: Recommendations From the National Institutes of Health and American College of Surgeons Summit.

Health care disparities (differential access, care, and outcomes owing to factors such as race/ethnicity) are widely established. Compared with other groups, African American individuals have an increased mortality risk across multiple surgical procedures. Gender, sexual orientation, age, and geographic disparities are also well documented. Further research is needed to mitigate these inequities. To do so, the American College of Surgeons and the National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Minority Health and Disparities convened a research summit to develop a national surgical disparities research agenda and funding priorities. Sixty leading researchers and clinicians gathered in May 2015 for a 2-day summit. First, literature on surgical disparities was presented within 5 themes: (1) clinician, (2) patient, (3) systemic/access, (4) clinical quality, and (5) postoperative care and rehabilitation-related factors. These themes were identified via an exhaustive preconference literature review and guided the summit and its interactive consensus-building exercises. After individual thematic presentations, attendees contributed research priorities for each theme. Suggestions were collated, refined, and prioritized during the latter half of the summit. Breakout sessions yielded 3 to 5 top research priorities by theme. Overall priorities, regardless of theme, included improving patient-clinician communication, fostering engagement and community outreach by using technology, improving care at facilities with a higher proportion of minority patients, evaluating the longer-term effect of acute intervention and rehabilitation support, and improving patient centeredness by identifying expectations for recovery. The National Institutes of Health and American College of Surgeons Summit on Surgical Disparities Research succeeded in identifying a comprehensive research agenda. Future research and funding priorities should prioritize patients' care perspectives, workforce diversification and training, and systematic evaluation of health technologies to reduce surgical disparities.