Emergency Department Quality of Care for Sickle Cell Disease in Ontario, Canada: A Population-Based Matched Cohort Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Acute vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC) in sickle cell disease (SCD) frequently leads patients to seek emergency department (ED) care. Whether or not health inequities exist, and their exact nature, is poorly understood in ED visits for SCD VOC within a universal publicly funded healthcare system. In this study, we aimed to address this knowledge gap by characterizing the landscape of ED care burden and quality indicators for SCD VOC management in the province of Ontario, Canada. Methods: We used population-level health administrative data to identify patients with SCD in Ontario who presented to the ED with SCD VOC (ICD-10-CA code D57.0) from 2006 to 2018. We evaluated quality of care indicators in the ED for this population and compared these with a general population group matched by age, sex, neighbourhood income quintile, geography (forward sortation area) and date of ED visit (-15 to +15 days per visit) (35,370 ED visits; 27,195 patients). Results: We identified 1,811 patients who presented to the ED with SCD VOC for a total of 13,123 ED visits over the study period. Of ED presentations, 40% were pediatric (< 18 years), 47% were male and 99% lived in urban settings. Compared to ED visits for the matched group, ED visits for SCD VOC had a significantly higher proportion of high acuity triage scores (CTAS 1 or 2) (74% vs 18%; p < 0.001), shorter time to initial physician assessment (76 ± 82 vs 90 ± 86 minutes; mean ± SD, p < 0.001), longer period of ED assessment and observation (432 ± 261 vs 212 ± 179 minutes; p < 0.001), increased likelihood of hospital admission (62% vs 5%; p < 0.001), longer duration of inpatient stay (5.2 ± 6.7 vs 4.0 ± 8.1 days; p < 0.001), and higher rates of repeat ED visits within 30 days of ED discharge (0.57 ± 1.44 vs 0.26 ± 0.79 visits; p < 0.001). We found specific socio-demographic variables associated with a poorer quality of care in ED visits for SCD VOC, including patients who were adults, male, from a low-income neighbourhood, having a greater number of dependents, a higher neighbourhood level of material deprivation, from an ethnically-concentrated neighbourhood, and those who lived in a residentially unstable region. Bivariate analyses for clinically meaningful outcomes (defined as ED disposition, repeat ED visit within 30 days, length of hospital admission stay, and being among the highest user bracket of ED care) further revealed significant socio-demographic associations that validated the clinical relevance of these determinants underlying ED metric disparities found within the SCD cohort (Table 1). In subgroup comparisons, we observed a significant difference in triage acuity scoring for adults compared with children with SCD VOC, with a 25% lower rate of high acuity triage score (CTAS 1 or 2) (66% vs 86%). We also found that despite a majority of adults with SCD VOC receiving these scores compared to those in the matched group (66% vs 18%), their mean times to initial physician assessment were not significantly different (90 ± 94 vs 91 ± 89 minutes), reflecting an average SCD VOC wait time longer than the clinical practice guideline recommendation of first dose analgesic within the first 60 minutes of ED arrival. Furthermore, we identified a negative correlation between poor ED metrics and patients with SCD who were highly dependent on ED care (defined as 4-9 or ≥ 10 ED visits for SCD VOC per year) at levels significantly above the matched comparative baseline. Conclusions: Indicators of ED care for SCD largely reflect the clinical acuity and severity of VOC presentations in Ontario, Canada. However, significant disparities in the quality of care received and in clinical outcomes for specific subgroups of patients with SCD, including those most vulnerable within this patient population, raises concern from a health equity perspective.By leveraging this landscape of SCD ED care, future policy, clinical and research efforts must work to understand, address and close these gaps in order to achieve best and equitable care for all. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».