Racial and ethnic differences in patient ratings of colorectal and non-small-cell lung cancer care: A SEER-CAHPS study.

PURPOSE: Although significant racial and ethnic disparities exist in colorectal and lung cancer treatment and survival, racial differences in patient-reported experience of care are not well understood. The purpose of this study was to examine differences in patient-reported ratings of colorectal and non-small-cell lung cancer care by race/ethnicity. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries with AJCC stage I-IV colorectal and non-small-cell lung cancer (2003-2013) who completed a Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers (CAHPS) survey within 5 years of cancer diagnosis were identified in the linked SEER-CAHPS dataset. Scores were compared by race/ethnicity, defined as White, Black, or any other race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Of the 2,621 identified patients, 161 (6.1%) were Black, 2,279 (87.0%) White, and 181 (6.9%) any other race/ethnicity. Compared to White patients, Black patients were younger, had lower educational level, and had higher census tract poverty indicator (p < 0.001). Black patients rated their ability to get care quickly significantly lower than White patients (63.5 (SE 3.38) vs. 71.4 (SE 2.12), p < 0.01), as did patients of any other race/ethnicity (LS mean 66.2 (SE 2.89), p = 0.02). Patients of any other race/ethnicity reported their ability to get needed care significantly lower than White patients (LS mean 81.9 (SE 2.46) vs. 86.7 (SE 1.75), p = 0.02); however, there was no difference in ability to get needed care between Black and White patients. CONCLUSION: Patient ratings for getting care quickly were lower in non-White patients, indicating racial disparities in perceived timeliness of care.

The impact of enhanced recovery pathways on cost of care and perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing gastroesophageal and hepatopancreatobiliary surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols have been increasingly adopted to standardize patient care and decrease overall costs. This study evaluated the impact of a prospectively implemented enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for patients undergoing surgery for gastroesophageal and hepatopancreatobiliary disease at an academic institution. METHODS: Patients undergoing either hepatopancreatobiliary or gastroesophageal procedures between January 2013 and May 2017 were classified according to whether or not they were placed on an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol. Groups were compared along demographic, perioperative, outcomes, and financial variables. RESULTS: Of a total of 377 patients, 149 were placed on an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol. There was a significant association between enhanced recovery after surgery protocol use and increased perioperative antibiotic use (98.0% enhanced recovery after surgery vs. 87.3% non-enhanced recovery after surgery, P < .001), decreased intraoperative crystalloid use (1,155 ± 705 mL enhanced recovery after surgery vs. 1,576 ± 826 non-enhanced recovery after surgery, P < .001), decreased requirement for intensive care unit stay (20.1% enhanced recovery after surgery vs. 36.4% non-enhanced recovery after surgery, P < .001), and decreased total hospital costs ($10,688.38 ± 10,518.22 vs. $15,439.22 ± 14,201.24, P < .001). On multivariable analysis, enhanced recovery after surgery protocol use was independently associated with decreased rate of intensive care unit admission (odds ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.66, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Enhanced recovery after surgery pathways can be safely implemented in patients undergoing hepatopancreatobiliary and gastroesophageal procedures and can help standardize perioperative practices, decrease requirement for intensive care unit admission, and decrease total hospital costs.