4.4 Article

Leaving the emergency department without complete care: disparities in American Indian children

期刊

BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3092-z

关键词

Pediatric; Emergency department; American Indian; Disparities

资金

  1. National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities of the National Institutes of Health, Award [U54MD008164]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Children who leave the emergency department (ED) without complete evaluation or care (LWCET) have poorer outcomes in general. Previous studies have found that American Indian (AI) children have higher rates of LWCET than other racial or ethnic groups. Therefore, this study aims to examine LWCET in AI children by exploring differences by ED location and utilization patterns. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of five EDs in the upper Midwest between June 2011 and May 2012. We included all visits by children aged 0-17 who identified as African American (AA), AI or White. Logistic regression was used to determine differences in LWCET by race and ED location controlling for other possible confounding factors including sex, age, insurance type, triage level, distance from ED, timing of visit, and ED activity level. Results: LWCET occurred in 1.73% of 68,461 visits made by 47,228 children. The multivariate model revealed that AIs were more likely to LWCET compared to White children (Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.62, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.30-2. 03). There was no significant difference in LWCET between AA and White children. Other factors significantly associated with LWCET included triage level, distance from the ED, timing of visit, and ED activity level. Conclusion: Our results show that AI children have higher rates of LWCET compared to White children; this association is different from other racial minority groups. There are likely complex factors affecting LWCET in AI children throughout the upper Midwest, which necessitates further exploration.

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