Kevin J Tu, J Priyanka Vakkalanka, Uche E Okoro, Karisa K Harland, Cole Wymore, Brian M Fuller, Kalyn Campbell, Morgan B Swanson, Edith A Parker, Luke J Mack, Amanda Bell, Katie DeJong, Brett Faine, Anne Zepeski, Keith Mueller, Elizabeth Chrischilles, Christopher R Carpenter, Michael P Jones, Marcia M Ward, Nicholas M Mohr
{"title":"在社会脆弱性较高的社区,脓毒症的提供者对提供者远程医疗的使用率较低。","authors":"Kevin J Tu, J Priyanka Vakkalanka, Uche E Okoro, Karisa K Harland, Cole Wymore, Brian M Fuller, Kalyn Campbell, Morgan B Swanson, Edith A Parker, Luke J Mack, Amanda Bell, Katie DeJong, Brett Faine, Anne Zepeski, Keith Mueller, Elizabeth Chrischilles, Christopher R Carpenter, Michael P Jones, Marcia M Ward, Nicholas M Mohr","doi":"10.1111/jrh.12861","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Sepsis disproportionately affects patients in rural and socially vulnerable communities. A promising strategy to address this disparity is provider-to-provider emergency department (ED)-based telehealth consultation (tele-ED). The objective of this study was to determine if county-level social vulnerability index (SVI) was associated with tele-ED use for sepsis and, if so, which SVI elements were most strongly associated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used data from the TELEmedicine as a Virtual Intervention for Sepsis in Rural Emergency Department study. The primary exposures were SVI aggregate and component scores. We used multivariable generalized estimating equations to model the association between SVI and tele-ED use.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Our study cohort included 1191 patients treated in 23 Midwestern rural EDs between August 2016 and June 2019, of whom 326 (27.4%) were treated with tele-ED. Providers in counties with a high SVI were less likely to use tele-ED (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31‒0.87), an effect principally attributable to the housing type and transportation component of SVI (aOR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.89). Providers who treated fewer sepsis patients (1‒10 vs. 31+ over study period) and therefore may have been less experienced in sepsis care, were more likely to activate tele-ED (aOR = 3.91, 95% CI 2.08‒7.38).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Tele-ED use for sepsis was lower in socially vulnerable counties and higher among providers who treated fewer sepsis patients. These findings suggest that while tele-ED increases access to specialized care, it may not completely ameliorate sepsis disparities due to its less frequent use in socially vulnerable communities.</p>","PeriodicalId":50060,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rural Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Provider-to-provider telemedicine for sepsis is used less frequently in communities with high social vulnerability.\",\"authors\":\"Kevin J Tu, J Priyanka Vakkalanka, Uche E Okoro, Karisa K Harland, Cole Wymore, Brian M Fuller, Kalyn Campbell, Morgan B Swanson, Edith A Parker, Luke J Mack, Amanda Bell, Katie DeJong, Brett Faine, Anne Zepeski, Keith Mueller, Elizabeth Chrischilles, Christopher R Carpenter, Michael P Jones, Marcia M Ward, Nicholas M Mohr\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jrh.12861\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Sepsis disproportionately affects patients in rural and socially vulnerable communities. A promising strategy to address this disparity is provider-to-provider emergency department (ED)-based telehealth consultation (tele-ED). The objective of this study was to determine if county-level social vulnerability index (SVI) was associated with tele-ED use for sepsis and, if so, which SVI elements were most strongly associated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used data from the TELEmedicine as a Virtual Intervention for Sepsis in Rural Emergency Department study. The primary exposures were SVI aggregate and component scores. We used multivariable generalized estimating equations to model the association between SVI and tele-ED use.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Our study cohort included 1191 patients treated in 23 Midwestern rural EDs between August 2016 and June 2019, of whom 326 (27.4%) were treated with tele-ED. Providers in counties with a high SVI were less likely to use tele-ED (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31‒0.87), an effect principally attributable to the housing type and transportation component of SVI (aOR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.89). Providers who treated fewer sepsis patients (1‒10 vs. 31+ over study period) and therefore may have been less experienced in sepsis care, were more likely to activate tele-ED (aOR = 3.91, 95% CI 2.08‒7.38).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Tele-ED use for sepsis was lower in socially vulnerable counties and higher among providers who treated fewer sepsis patients. These findings suggest that while tele-ED increases access to specialized care, it may not completely ameliorate sepsis disparities due to its less frequent use in socially vulnerable communities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Rural Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Rural Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12861\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rural Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12861","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:败血症对农村和社会弱势群体患者的影响尤为严重。解决这一差异的一个可行策略是基于急诊科(ED)的远程医疗咨询(tele-ED)。本研究的目的是确定县级社会脆弱性指数(SVI)是否与脓毒症远程会诊的使用有关,如果有关,哪些 SVI 要素与之关系最为密切:我们使用了农村急诊科脓毒症远程医疗虚拟干预研究的数据。主要暴露因子为 SVI 总分和成分分。我们使用多变量广义估计方程来模拟 SVI 与远程急诊使用之间的关系:我们的研究队列包括 2016 年 8 月至 2019 年 6 月期间在 23 个中西部农村急诊室接受治疗的 1191 名患者,其中 326 人(27.4%)接受了远程急诊治疗。SVI较高的县的医疗服务提供者不太可能使用远程急诊(调整后的几率比 [aOR] = 0.51,95% 置信区间 [CI] 0.31-0.87),这种影响主要归因于SVI的住房类型和交通部分(aOR = 0.44,95% CI 0.22-0.89)。治疗脓毒症患者较少(研究期间为 1-10 例与 31+ 例)、因此可能在脓毒症护理方面经验较少的医疗服务提供者更有可能启用远程急救(aOR = 3.91,95% CI 2.08-7.38):脓毒症远程医疗在社会弱势县的使用率较低,在治疗脓毒症患者较少的医疗机构中使用率较高。这些研究结果表明,虽然远程电子病历增加了获得专业护理的机会,但由于其在社会弱势社区的使用频率较低,因此可能无法完全改善脓毒症的差异。
Provider-to-provider telemedicine for sepsis is used less frequently in communities with high social vulnerability.
Purpose: Sepsis disproportionately affects patients in rural and socially vulnerable communities. A promising strategy to address this disparity is provider-to-provider emergency department (ED)-based telehealth consultation (tele-ED). The objective of this study was to determine if county-level social vulnerability index (SVI) was associated with tele-ED use for sepsis and, if so, which SVI elements were most strongly associated.
Methods: We used data from the TELEmedicine as a Virtual Intervention for Sepsis in Rural Emergency Department study. The primary exposures were SVI aggregate and component scores. We used multivariable generalized estimating equations to model the association between SVI and tele-ED use.
Findings: Our study cohort included 1191 patients treated in 23 Midwestern rural EDs between August 2016 and June 2019, of whom 326 (27.4%) were treated with tele-ED. Providers in counties with a high SVI were less likely to use tele-ED (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31‒0.87), an effect principally attributable to the housing type and transportation component of SVI (aOR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.89). Providers who treated fewer sepsis patients (1‒10 vs. 31+ over study period) and therefore may have been less experienced in sepsis care, were more likely to activate tele-ED (aOR = 3.91, 95% CI 2.08‒7.38).
Conclusions: Tele-ED use for sepsis was lower in socially vulnerable counties and higher among providers who treated fewer sepsis patients. These findings suggest that while tele-ED increases access to specialized care, it may not completely ameliorate sepsis disparities due to its less frequent use in socially vulnerable communities.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Rural Health, a quarterly journal published by the NRHA, offers a variety of original research relevant and important to rural health. Some examples include evaluations, case studies, and analyses related to health status and behavior, as well as to health work force, policy and access issues. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies are welcome. Highest priority is given to manuscripts that reflect scholarly quality, demonstrate methodological rigor, and emphasize practical implications. The journal also publishes articles with an international rural health perspective, commentaries, book reviews and letters.