Joan Cunningham1. 1. Menzies School ofHealth Research, Casuarina, NT. joan.cunningham@menzies.edu.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether hospital patients identified as Indigenous are less likely than other inpatients to have a principal procedure recorded, and the extent to which any disparity in procedure use can be explained by differences in patient, episode and hospital characteristics. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of routinely collected administrative data from the National Hospital Morbidity Database (NHMD). SETTING: Australian public and private hospitals. PATIENTS: All patients included in the NHMD whose episode type was recorded as acute and whose separation occurred between 1 July 1997 and 30 June 1998. Patients admitted for routine dialysis treatment were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Whether a principal procedure was recorded. RESULTS: In public hospitals, patients identified as Indigenous were significantly less likely than other patients to have a principal procedure recorded, even after adjusting for patient, episode and hospital characteristics (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.66-0.68). This disparity was apparent for most diseases and conditions. In private hospitals, no significant difference was observed (adjusted OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: The disparity in procedure use after adjustment for relevant factors indicates that in Australian public hospitals there may be systematic differences in the treatment of patients identified as Indigenous.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether hospital patients identified as Indigenous are less likely than other inpatients to have a principal procedure recorded, and the extent to which any disparity in procedure use can be explained by differences in patient, episode and hospital characteristics. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of routinely collected administrative data from the National Hospital Morbidity Database (NHMD). SETTING: Australian public and private hospitals. PATIENTS: All patients included in the NHMD whose episode type was recorded as acute and whose separation occurred between 1 July 1997 and 30 June 1998. Patients admitted for routine dialysis treatment were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Whether a principal procedure was recorded. RESULTS: In public hospitals, patients identified as Indigenous were significantly less likely than other patients to have a principal procedure recorded, even after adjusting for patient, episode and hospital characteristics (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.66-0.68). This disparity was apparent for most diseases and conditions. In private hospitals, no significant difference was observed (adjusted OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: The disparity in procedure use after adjustment for relevant factors indicates that in Australian public hospitals there may be systematic differences in the treatment of patients identified as Indigenous.
Authors: Derrick Lopez; Judith M Katzenellenbogen; Frank M Sanfilippo; John A Woods; Michael S T Hobbs; Matthew W Knuiman; Tom G Briffa; Peter L Thompson; Sandra C Thompson Journal: Int J Equity Health Date: 2014-10-21
Authors: Pupalan Iyngkaran; Jeff Tinsley; David Smith; Mark Haste; Kangaharan Nadarajan; Marcus Ilton; Malcolm Battersby; Simon Stewart; Alex Brown Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-01-29 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Derrick Lopez; Judith M Katzenellenbogen; Frank M Sanfilippo; John A Woods; Michael S T Hobbs; Matthew W Knuiman; Tom G Briffa; Peter L Thompson; Sandra C Thompson Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2014-05-01 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Suzanne P Moore; Adèle C Green; Freddie Bray; Gail Garvey; Michael Coory; Jennifer Martin; Patricia C Valery Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-07-18 Impact factor: 4.430