Comparison of inpatient subspecialty care delivery models: Clinical outcomes and racial disparities in dedicated versus consultative pulmonary care.

Bhavik P Patel, Caitlin B Clancy, Scott D Halpern, Rachel Kohn
{"title":"Comparison of inpatient subspecialty care delivery models: Clinical outcomes and racial disparities in dedicated versus consultative pulmonary care.","authors":"Bhavik P Patel, Caitlin B Clancy, Scott D Halpern, Rachel Kohn","doi":"10.1002/jhm.70078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Subspecialty inpatient care is associated with improved outcomes in various clinical settings. However, clinical outcomes and racial disparities between dedicated inpatient pulmonary care and general medicine services with pulmonary consultation remain unknown.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare clinical outcomes between dedicated and consultative inpatient pulmonary care and evaluate whether racial disparities in outcomes differ by care model.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective cohort study of 1072 self-identified Black and White adults admitted to dedicated pulmonary or general medicine services with pulmonary consultation (April 2017-February 2020) at an academic medical center. Exposures included the care model, race, and the interaction between the two. Outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS; modeled as risk of discharge alive using competing risk models), hospital readmissions, and outpatient pulmonary follow-up. We performed multivariable regression models with interaction terms adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, clinical severity, and pulmonary diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Dedicated pulmonary service patients had shorter LOS (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR]: 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.14-1.67, p = .001) and improved 90-day outpatient follow-up (odds ratio [OR]: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.07-2.49, p = .023). The interaction between care model and race demonstrated significantly lower odds of 30-day follow-up among Black patients admitted to the dedicated service versus those with consultations; no other significant racial disparities in outcomes were demonstrated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dedicated pulmonary inpatient care was associated with shorter hospital LOS and higher 90-day outpatient follow-up without significant racial disparities in most outcomes. Hospitals could consider pilot-testing dedicated inpatient pulmonary care models, as more work is needed to validate these findings in broader settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":94084,"journal":{"name":"Journal of hospital medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of hospital medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.70078","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Subspecialty inpatient care is associated with improved outcomes in various clinical settings. However, clinical outcomes and racial disparities between dedicated inpatient pulmonary care and general medicine services with pulmonary consultation remain unknown.

Objective: To compare clinical outcomes between dedicated and consultative inpatient pulmonary care and evaluate whether racial disparities in outcomes differ by care model.

Methods: Retrospective cohort study of 1072 self-identified Black and White adults admitted to dedicated pulmonary or general medicine services with pulmonary consultation (April 2017-February 2020) at an academic medical center. Exposures included the care model, race, and the interaction between the two. Outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS; modeled as risk of discharge alive using competing risk models), hospital readmissions, and outpatient pulmonary follow-up. We performed multivariable regression models with interaction terms adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, clinical severity, and pulmonary diagnosis.

Results: Dedicated pulmonary service patients had shorter LOS (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR]: 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.14-1.67, p = .001) and improved 90-day outpatient follow-up (odds ratio [OR]: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.07-2.49, p = .023). The interaction between care model and race demonstrated significantly lower odds of 30-day follow-up among Black patients admitted to the dedicated service versus those with consultations; no other significant racial disparities in outcomes were demonstrated.

Conclusions: Dedicated pulmonary inpatient care was associated with shorter hospital LOS and higher 90-day outpatient follow-up without significant racial disparities in most outcomes. Hospitals could consider pilot-testing dedicated inpatient pulmonary care models, as more work is needed to validate these findings in broader settings.

住院亚专科护理交付模式的比较:专门与咨询肺部护理的临床结果和种族差异。
背景:亚专科住院治疗与各种临床环境下的改善结果相关。然而,临床结果和种族差异在专门的住院肺部护理和一般医学服务与肺部会诊仍然未知。目的:比较专门和咨询住院肺部护理的临床结果,并评估结果的种族差异是否因护理模式而异。方法:回顾性队列研究1072名自我认定的黑人和白人成年人,于2017年4月至2020年2月在一家学术医疗中心接受专门的肺部或普通医学服务并进行肺部咨询。暴露包括护理模式、种族和两者之间的相互作用。结果包括住院时间(LOS);建模为使用竞争风险模型的存活出院风险)、医院再入院和门诊肺部随访。我们进行了多变量回归模型,并根据人口统计学、合并症、临床严重程度和肺部诊断调整了相互作用项。结果:专门肺部服务患者的LOS较短(亚分布风险比[SHR]: 1.38, 95%可信区间[CI]: 1.14-1.67, p = .001),门诊随访90天改善(优势比[OR]: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.07-2.49, p = .023)。护理模式和种族之间的相互作用表明,在接受专门服务的黑人患者中,30天随访的几率明显低于接受咨询的黑人患者;结果中没有其他显著的种族差异。结论:专门的肺部住院治疗与较短的住院时间和较高的90天门诊随访有关,在大多数结果中没有显著的种族差异。医院可以考虑试点测试专门的住院肺部护理模式,因为需要更多的工作来验证这些发现在更广泛的环境中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信