Dataset Information

Disparity in clinical outcomes after cardiac surgery between private and public (NHS) payers in England.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is little known about how payer status impacts clinical outcomes in a universal single-payer system such as the UK National Health Service (NHS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between payer status (private or public) and clinical outcomes following cardiac surgery from NHS providers in England.

Methods

The National Adult Cardiac Surgery Audit (NACSA) registry was interrogated for patients who underwent adult cardiac surgery in England from 2009 to 2018. Information on socioeconomic status were provided by linkage with the Iteration of the English Indices of Deprivation (IoD). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included incidence of in-hospital postoperative cerebrovascular accident (CVA), renal dialysis, sternal wound infection, and re-exploration. To assess whether payer status was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality, binomial generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) were fitted along with 17 items forming the EuroSCORE and the IoD domains.

Findings

The final sample consisted of 280,209 patients who underwent surgery in 31 NHS hospitals in England from 2009 to 2018. Of them, 5,967 (2.1%) and 274,242 (97.9%) were private and NHS payers respectively. Private payer status was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.79; 95%CI 0.65 - 0.97;P = 0.026), CVA (OR 0.77; 95%CI 0.60 - 0.99; P = 0.039), need for re-exploration (OR 0.84; 95%CI 0.72 - 0.97; P = 0.017) and with non-significant lower risk of dialysis (OR 0.84; 95%CI 0.69 - 1.02; P = 0.074). Private payer status was found to be independently associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality in the elective subgroup (OR 0.76; 95%CI 0.61 - 0.96; P = 0.020) but not in the non-elective subgroup (OR 1.01; 95%CI 0.64 - 1.58; P = 0.976).

Interpretation

In conclusion, using a national database, we have found evidence of significant beneficial effect of payer status on hospital outcomes following cardiac surgery in favour of private payers regardless their socioeconomic factors.

SUBMITTER: Benedetto U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8454835 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Disparity in clinical outcomes after cardiac surgery between private and public (NHS) payers in England.

Benedetto Umberto U Dimagli Arnaldo A Gibbison Ben B Sinha Shubhra S Pufulete Maria M Fudulu Daniel D Cocomello Lucia L Bryan Alan J AJ Ohri Sunil S Caputo Massimo M Cooper Graham G Dong Tim T Akowuah Enoch E Angelini Gianni D GD

The Lancet regional health. Europe 20201113

<h4>Background</h4>There is little known about how payer status impacts clinical outcomes in a universal single-payer system such as the UK National Health Service (NHS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between payer status (private or public) and clinical outcomes following cardiac surgery from NHS providers in England.<h4>Methods</h4>The National Adult Cardiac Surgery Audit (NACSA) registry was interrogated for patients who underwent adult cardiac surgery in England from ...[more]

PMID: 35104303

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGeospatial smartphone application alert systems are used in some communities to crowdsource community response for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Although the clinical focus of this strategy is OHCA, dispatch identification of OHCA is imperfect so that activation may occur for the non-arrest patient. The frequency and clinical profile of such non-arrest patients has not been well-investigated.MethodsWe undertook a prospective 3-year cohort investigation of patients for whom a smartphone geospatial application was activated for suspected OHCA in four United States communities (total population ~1 million). The current investigation evaluates those patients with an activation for suspected OHCA who did not experience cardiac arrest. The volunteer response cohort included off-duty, volunteer public safety personnel (verified responders) notified regardless of location (public or private) and laypersons notified to public locations. The study linked the smartphone application information with the EMS records to report the frequency, condition type, and EMS treatment for these non-arrest patients.ResultsOf 1779 calls where volunteers were activated, 756 had suffered OHCA, resulting in 1023 non-arrest patients for study evaluation. The most common EMS assessments were syncope (15.9%, n=163), altered mental status (15.5%, n=159), seizure (14.3%, n=146), overdose (13.0%, n=133), and choking (10.5%, n=107). The assessment distribution was similar for private and public locations. Overall, the most common EMS interventions included placement of an intravenous line (43.1%, n=441), 12-Lead ECG(27.9%, n=285), naloxone treatment (9.8%, n=100), airway or ventilation assistance (8.7%, n=89), and oxygen administration (6.6%, n=68).ConclusionsMore than half of patients activated for suspected OHCA had conditions other than cardiac arrest. A subset of these conditions may benefit from earlier care that could be provided by both layperson and public safety volunteers if they were appropriately trained and equipped.

Project description:Policy Points There is growing understanding of how manufacturers of harmful products influence health policy. The strategies, approaches, and influences from such manufacturers that are detrimental to health have been termed the "corporate" or "commercial" determinants of health. However, while partnerships with the tobacco industry are clearly unacceptable for public health organizations, ties to other industries continue to be pursued. Such partnerships may influence health organizations in a number of ways detrimental to population health. However, with the exception of tobacco industry tactics as revealed by internal documents, we know relatively little about how this influence operates. This article uses emails between the Coca-Cola Company and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which we obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, to explore the nature of corporate influence, conflicts of interest, and lobbying "in their own words," and highlights the need for greater transparency and clearer policies on engaging with such industries. CONTEXT:There is a continuing debate about the appropriateness of contacts between manufacturers of some harmful products and health researchers, as well as practitioners and policymakers. Some argue that such contacts may be a means of exerting undue influence, while others present them as an opportunity to pursue shared health goals. This article examines interactions between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola) as revealed by communications obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. METHODS:We sent 10 US FOIA requests in 2016/2017 for communications between employees at the CDC and Coca-Cola. We then performed a thematic content analysis of the documents provided. FINDINGS:Of our 10 FOIA requests, 3 requests are still pending (at the time of this publication); 5 were rejected as too broad or because no records were found; and 3 returned 295 pages from 86 emails. The CDC withheld 102 pages to "protect commercial or financial information which is privileged or confidential." The returned emails demonstrate three main themes in Coca-Cola's contact with CDC employees: to gain and expand access, to lobby, and to shift attention and blame away from sugar-sweetened beverages. CONCLUSIONS:The emails we obtained using FOIA requests reveal efforts by Coca-Cola to lobby the CDC to advance corporate objectives rather than health, including to influence the World Health Organization. Our findings provide a rare example of the ways in which corporate interests attempt to influence public health practitioners "in their own words," and they demonstrate a need for clearer policies on avoiding partnerships with manufacturers of harmful products.

Dataset Information

Disparity in clinical outcomes after cardiac surgery between private and public (NHS) payers in England.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Publications

Disparity in clinical outcomes after cardiac surgery between private and public (NHS) payers in England.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets