4.4 Article

Ambulance diversions following public hospital emergency department closures

期刊

HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
卷 54, 期 4, 页码 870-879

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.13147

关键词

access to care; ambulance diversion; emergency department

资金

  1. University of California, Los Angeles
  2. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [R36HS024247-01]
  3. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [TL1TR000121]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To examine whether hospitals are more likely to temporarily close their emergency departments (EDs) to ambulances (through ambulance diversions) if neighboring diverting hospitals are public vs private. Data Sources/Study Setting Ambulance diversion logs for California hospitals, discharge data, and hospital characteristics data from California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development and the American Hospital Association (2007). Study Design We match public and private (nonprofit or for-profit) hospitals by distance and size. We use random-effects models examining diversion probability and timing of private hospitals following diversions by neighboring public vs matched private hospitals. Data Collection/Extraction Methods N/A. Principal Findings Hospitals are 3.6 percent more likely to declare diversions if neighboring diverting hospitals are public vs private (P < 0.001). Hospitals declaring diversions have lower ED occupancy (P < 0.001) after neighboring public (vs private) hospitals divert. Hospitals have 4.2 percent shorter diversions if neighboring diverting hospitals are public vs private (P < 0.001). When the neighboring hospital ends its diversion first, hospitals terminate diversions 4.2 percent sooner if the neighboring hospital is public vs private (P = 0.022). Conclusions Sample hospitals respond differently to diversions by neighboring public (vs private) hospitals, suggesting that these hospitals might be strategically declaring ambulance diversions to avoid treating low-paying patients served by public hospitals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据