OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the relationship between a patient's proximal familial social support, defined as the geographic proximity of family members, and healthcare utilization after complex cardiovascular and oncologic procedures. BACKGROUND: Social support mechanisms are increasingly identified as modifiable risk factors for healthcare utilization. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 60,895 patients undergoing complex cardiovascular procedures or oncologic procedures. We defined healthcare utilization outcomes as 30-day all-cause readmission unplanned readmission, nonindex hospital readmission, index hospital length of stay, and home discharge disposition. For each patient, we aggregated the number of first-degree relatives (FDR) living within 30 miles of the patient's home address at the time of the surgical procedure into the following categories: 0 to 1, 2 to 3, 4 to 5, 6+ FDRs. We developed hierarchical multivariable regression models to determine the relationship between the number of FDR living within 30 miles of the patient and the healthcare utilization outcomes. RESULTS: Compared with patients with 0 to 1 FDRs, patients with 6+ FDRs living in close proximity had significantly lower rates of all-cause readmission (12.1% vs 13.5%, P <0.001), unplanned readmission (10.9% vs 12.0%, P =0.001), nonindex readmission (2.6% vs 3.2%, P =0.003); higher rates of home discharge (88.0% vs 85.3%, P <0.001); and shorter length of stay (7.3 vs 7.5 days, P =0.02). After multivariable adjustment, a larger number of FDRs living within 30 miles of the patient was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of all-cause readmission ( P <0.001 for trend), 30-day unplanned readmission ( P <0.001), nonindex readmission ( P <0.001); higher likelihood of home discharge ( P <0.001); and shorter index length of stay ( P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The geographic proximity of family members is significantly associated with decreased healthcare utilization after complex cardiovascular and oncologic surgical procedures.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the relationship between a patient's proximal familial social support, defined as the geographic proximity of family members, and healthcare utilization after complex cardiovascular and oncologic procedures. BACKGROUND: Social support mechanisms are increasingly identified as modifiable risk factors for healthcare utilization. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 60,895 patients undergoing complex cardiovascular procedures or oncologic procedures. We defined healthcare utilization outcomes as 30-day all-cause readmission unplanned readmission, nonindex hospital readmission, index hospital length of stay, and home discharge disposition. For each patient, we aggregated the number of first-degree relatives (FDR) living within 30 miles of the patient's home address at the time of the surgical procedure into the following categories: 0 to 1, 2 to 3, 4 to 5, 6+ FDRs. We developed hierarchical multivariable regression models to determine the relationship between the number of FDR living within 30 miles of the patient and the healthcare utilization outcomes. RESULTS: Compared with patients with 0 to 1 FDRs, patients with 6+ FDRs living in close proximity had significantly lower rates of all-cause readmission (12.1% vs 13.5%, P <0.001), unplanned readmission (10.9% vs 12.0%, P =0.001), nonindex readmission (2.6% vs 3.2%, P =0.003); higher rates of home discharge (88.0% vs 85.3%, P <0.001); and shorter length of stay (7.3 vs 7.5 days, P =0.02). After multivariable adjustment, a larger number of FDRs living within 30 miles of the patient was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of all-cause readmission ( P <0.001 for trend), 30-day unplanned readmission ( P <0.001), nonindex readmission ( P <0.001); higher likelihood of home discharge ( P <0.001); and shorter index length of stay ( P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The geographic proximity of family members is significantly associated with decreased healthcare utilization after complex cardiovascular and oncologic surgical procedures.
Authors: Claire L Leiser; Marissa Taddie; Rachael Hemmert; Rebecca Richards Steed; James A VanDerslice; Kevin Henry; Jacob Ambrose; Brock O'Neil; Ken R Smith; Heidi A Hanson Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2020-04-22 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Andrew W Bazemore; Erika K Cottrell; Rachel Gold; Lauren S Hughes; Robert L Phillips; Heather Angier; Timothy E Burdick; Mark A Carrozza; Jennifer E DeVoe Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-07-13 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Pablo Buitron de la Vega; Stephanie Losi; Linda Sprague Martinez; Allison Bovell-Ammon; Arvin Garg; Thea James; Alana M Ewen; Marna Stack; Heloisa DeCarvalho; Megan Sandel; Rebecca G Mishuris; Stella Deych; Patrick Pelletier; Nancy R Kressin Journal: Med Care Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Claire M Sokas; Frances Y Hu; Michael K Dalton; Molly P Jarman; Rachelle E Bernacki; Angela Bader; Ronnie A Rosenthal; Zara Cooper Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jibby E Kurichi; Diane Cowper Ripley; Dawei Xie; Pui L Kwong; Barbara E Bates; Margaret G Stineman Journal: PM R Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Barbara M Murphy; Peter C Elliott; Michael R Le Grande; Rosemary O Higgins; Christine S Ernest; Alan J Goble; James Tatoulis; Marian U C Worcester Journal: Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil Date: 2008-04
Authors: Owoicho Adogwa; Aladine A Elsamadicy; Victoria D Vuong; Ankit I Mehta; Raul A Vasquez; Joseph Cheng; Carlos A Bagley; Isaac O Karikari Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2017-04-06