Introduction Designated high-quality trauma services have been shown to improve outcomes of trauma patients by virtue of access to specialized personnel and resources. It remains unclear if a ‘halo effect’ extends these benefits more generally to non-trauma populations. Obstetric patients who develop severe postpartum hemorrhage often require close attention in intensive care units and utilize more resources. Given the overlapping needs between trauma and obstetric patients, we hypothesize that the ‘halo effect’ might extend to patients with severe postpartum hemorrhage. Methods The Nationwide Inpatient Sample for years 2008 to 2011 was queried. Patients with severe postpartum hemorrhage were identified as those requiring transfusion, hysterectomy, or uterine repair. After stratifying by level 1 trauma center versus non-level 1 trauma center status, unadjusted univariate comparisons were made. Adjusted odds ratio of end-organ failure and death were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. Results A total of 11,135 patients were identified with severe postpartum hemorrhage. The majority were hospitalized at non-level 1 trauma centers rather than level 1 trauma centers (71.4% vs. 28.6%). Patients at non-level 1 trauma centers were younger, more likely to be white, admitted electively, insured, and healthier with a lower comorbidity index. There was no significant difference in rates of mortality or organ failure. However, after adjustment for differences in comorbidity index, race, and emergency admission, patients at non-level 1 trauma centers had a significantly higher risk of respiratory failure (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.01–1.59). Conclusions These findings suggest that the outcomes of obstetric patients with severe postpartum hemorrhage admitted in level 1 trauma centers are not overall significantly different when compared to those in non-level 1 trauma centers. However, after adjusting for baseline characteristics, there was a reduced risk of respiratory failure in patients admitted to level 1 trauma centers.

BACKGROUND: Insurance status has been associated with disparities in stage at cancer diagnosis. We examined how Medicaid expansion (ME) impacted diagnoses, surgical treatment, use of neoadjuvant therapies (NCRT), and outcomes for Stage II and III rectal cancer. STUDY DESIGN: We used 2010-2017 American College of Surgeons National Cancer Database (NCDB) to identify patients ages 18-65, with Medicaid as primary form of payment, and were diagnosed with Stage II or III rectal cancer. Patients were stratified based on Census bureau division’s ME adoption rates of High, Medium, Low. Overall trends were examined, and patient characteristics and outcomes were compared before and after ME date of 1/1/2014. RESULTS: Over 8 years of NCDB data examined, there was an increasing trend of Stage II and III rectal cancer diagnoses, surgical resection, and use of NCRT for Medicaid patients. We observed an increase in age, proportion of White Medicaid patients in Low ME divisions, and proportion of fourth income quartile patients in High ME divisions. Univariate analysis showed decreased use of open surgery for all 3 categories after ME, but adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were not significant based on multivariate analysis. NCRT utilization increased after ME for all 3 ME adoption categories and aOR significantly increased for Low and High ME divisions. ME significantly decreased 90-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion had important impacts on increasing Stage II and III rectal cancer diagnoses, use of NCRT, and decreased 90-day mortality for patients with Medicaid. Our study supports increasing health insurance coverage to improve Medicaid patient outcomes in rectal cancer care.

No abstract

No abstract