Association between socioeconomic status and hospitalisation requirement in older patients attended at the emergency department: A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: A low socioeconomic status (SES) has been associated with poor health results. The present study aimed to investigate if SES of older patients attending the emergency department is associated with the use of healthcare resources and outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Observational, retrospective study including consecutive patients 65 years or older admitted to the emergency department. Variables at baseline, index episode, and follow-up were recorded. SES was measured using an indirect theoretical index and patients were categorised into two groups according to whether they lived in a neighbourhood with a low or high SES. Primary outcomes included hospitalisation after the emergency department visit and prolonged hospitalisation (>7 days) at index episode. Secondary outcomes included emergency department re-consultant and hospital admission in the following 3 months after the index episode, and all-cause mortality after long-term follow-up. Logistic regression and cumulative hazards regression models were used to investigate associations between SES and outcomes. RESULTS: The cohort included 553 patients (80 years [73-85], 50.5% female, 55.9% with low SES). After the emergency department visit, 234 patients (42.3%) required hospital admission. A low SES was inversely associated with hospitalisation with an adjusted odds ratio=0.654 (95% CI 0.441-0.970). Among hospitalised patients, a low SES was associated with prolonged hospitalisation (adjusted odds ratio=2.739; 95% CI 1.470-5.104). Follow-up outcomes, including all-cause mortality, were not associated with SES. CONCLUSIONS: Older patients living in more deprived urban areas were hospitalised less often after emergency department care, but hospital stays were longer. Understanding the effect of social determinants in healthcare use is mandatory to tailor resources to patient needs.

Lack of correlation between two methods for the assessment of salt sensitivity in essential hypertension.

The existence of a heterogeneous blood pressure (BP) response to salt intake, a phenomenon known as salt sensitivity, has increasingly become a subject of clinical hypertension research, and has important clinical and prognostic implications. However, two different methodologies are currently used to diagnose salt sensitivity. The aim of the present study was to compare the BP response to intravenous sodium load and depletion on the one hand, and to changes in dietary salt intake on the other, in order to assess salt sensitivity in a group of essential hypertensive patients. Twenty-nine essential hypertensives underwent two different procedures separated by 1 month: a dietary test consisting of a 2-week period of low (20 mmol/day) and high (260 mmol/day) salt intakes, and an intravenous test consisting of a 2 litre saline load over a 4-h period, followed by 1 day of low (20 mmol) salt intake and furosemide (40 mg/8 h orally) administration. BP was registered at the end of every period using 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring. In the whole group of hypertensive patients studied, both low salt intake and furosemide administration significantly (P < 0.01) decreased mean BP. Correlation coefficients of BP changes obtained using the two methodologies were between 0.3 and 0.4. Moreover, coefficients of agreement between the oral and the intravenous tests, using several cut points for BP changes, were systematically below 0.5, thus indicating a misclassification of salt sensitivity greater than 50%, depending on the method used. None of the cut points for BP changes during furosemide administration showed a good combination of sensitivity and specificity compared with changes in response to low dietary salt. The present results indicate that the diagnosis of salt-sensitive hypertension should be based on the BP response to changes in dietary salt intake, while BP response to saline and furosemide administration leads to a systematic misclassification of more than 50% of patients, even using different cutpoints for changes in BP.

[Impact in the quality of health care and cost-effectiveness analysis of the reform of an emergency medicine service]. / Evaluación del impacto en la calidad asistencial y análisis coste-efectividad de la reforma de un servicio de urgencias de medicina.

BACKGROUND: To determine the effects that the reform of an emergency department (ED) have on efficacy, health care quality and efficiency. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Reforms consisted of 50% and 34% increases in structural and human resources, respectively. Roles of each ED member were redetermined, new assistance pathways were implemented, and the relationship between ED and the remaining hospital departments was reassessed. As efficacy markers, we determined the number of patients waiting to be attended (Pesp), the waiting time of patients to receive medical assistance (T(esp)),and the total waiting time of patients staying in the ED (T(total)). As health-care quality markers, we determined the percentage of patients leaving ED without having been visited by a physician(IPNV), the percentage of patients who were visited again (IPR),and the percentage of mortality (IPF). We also quantified the number of visits to the ED. All these data were obtained daily over 3 weeks, before (February 1999) and after (February 2000)the reforms. Effectiveness was estimated from the ratio P(total)/T(esp)(E1) and P(total)/P(esp) (E2). Costs were recorded for both periods and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to study the efficiency. RESULTS: In 2000, the number of visits increased by +12% (CI 95%: 2% to 22%). Despite this increase, we observed an improvement of most efficacy and health-care quality markers after the ED reforms. E1 increased by 996% (CI 95%: 335% to 1,658%) and E2 increased by 186% (CI 95%: -23%to 395%). Cost-effectiveness analysis showed 70% (CI 95%: 33%to 107%) and 56% (CI 95%: 18% to 94%) increases regarding E1 and E2, respectively, after the reforms. CONCLUSIONS: Providing ED with the necessary resources leads to an objective improvement of its efficacy and health-care quality and, consequently, the service and quality perceived by users improve. Despite the total cost increase after the ED reforms, efficiency also improves.