Non-English Primary Language: A Growing Population's Access to Cholecystectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To examine access to cholecystectomy and postoperative outcomes among non-English primary-speaking patients. BACKGROUND: The population of U.S. residents with limited English proficiency is growing. Language affects health literacy and is a well-recognized barrier to health care in the United States of America. Historically marginalized communities are at greater risk of requiring emergent gallbladder operations. However, little is known about how primary language affects surgical access and outcomes of common surgical procedures, such as cholecystectomy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients after receipt of cholecystectomy in Michigan, Maryland, and New Jersey utilizing the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database and State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Database (2016-2018). Patients were classified by primary spoken language: English or non-English. The primary outcome was admission type. Secondary outcomes included operative setting, operative approach, in-hospital mortality, postoperative complications, and length of stay. Multivariable logistics and Poisson regression were used to examine outcomes. RESULTS: Among 122,013 patients who underwent cholecystectomy, 91.6% were primarily English speaking and 8.4% were non-English primary language speaking. Primary non-English speaking patients had a higher likelihood of emergent/urgent admissions (odds ratio: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.04-1.44, P = 0.015) and a lower likelihood of having an outpatient operation (odds ratio: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.91, P = 0.0008). There was no difference in the use of a minimally invasive approach or postoperative outcomes based on the primary language spoken. CONCLUSIONS: Non-English primary language speakers were more likely to access cholecystectomy through the emergency department and less likely to receive outpatient cholecystectomy. Barriers to elective surgical presentation for this growing patient population need to be further studied.

Health System Structure: An Opportunity to Address Structural Racism and Discrimination.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the role of hub-and-spoke systems as a factor in structural racism and discrimination. BACKGROUND: Health systems are often organized in a "hub-and-spoke" manner to centralize complex surgical care to 1 high-volume hospital. Although the surgical health care disparities are well described across health care systems, it is not known how they seem across a single system's hospitals. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent 1 of 10 general surgery operations in 12 geographically diverse states (2016-2018) were identified using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's State Inpatient Databases. System status was assigned using the American Hospital Association dataset. Hub designation was assigned in 2 ways: (1) the hospital performing the most complex operations (general hub) or (2) the hospital performing the most of each specific operation (procedure-specific hub). Independent multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the risk-adjusted odds of treatment at hubs by race and ethnicity. RESULTS: We identified 122,236 patients across 133 hospitals in 43 systems. Most patients were White (73.4%), 14.2% were Black, and 12.4% Hispanic. A smaller proportion of Black and Hispanic patient underwent operations at general hubs compared with White patients (B: 59.6% H: 52.0% W: 62.0%, P <0.001). After adjustment, Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to receive care at hub hospitals relative to White patients for common and complex operations (general hub B: odds ratio: 0.88 CI, 0.85, 0.91 H: OR: 0.82 CI, 0.79, 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: When White, Black, and Hispanic patients seek care at hospital systems, Black and Hispanic patients are less likely to receive treatment at hub hospitals. Given the published advantages of high-volume care, this new finding may highlight an opportunity in the pursuit of health equity.