Does the insurance status influence in-hospital outcome? A retrospective assessment in 30,175 surgical trauma patients in Switzerland

Introduction There has been growing evidence in trauma literature that differences in insurance status lead to inequality in treatment and outcome. Most studies comparing uninsured to insured patients were done in the USA. We sought to gain further insights into differences in the outcomes of trauma...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of trauma and emergency surgery (Munich : 2007) 2022-04, Vol.48 (2), p.1121-1128
Hauptverfasser: Funke, Lukas, Canal, Claudio, Ziegenhain, Franziska, Pape, Hans-Christoph, Neuhaus, Valentin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction There has been growing evidence in trauma literature that differences in insurance status lead to inequality in treatment and outcome. Most studies comparing uninsured to insured patients were done in the USA. We sought to gain further insights into differences in the outcomes of trauma patients in a healthcare system with mandatory public health coverage by comparing publicly versus privately insured patients. Methods We used a prospective national quality assessment database from the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Qualitätssicherung in der Chirurgie (AQC). More than 80 surgical departments in Switzerland are part of this quality program. We included all patients in the AQC database with any S- or T-code diagnosis according to the International Classification of Diseases ICD-10 (any injuries) who were treated during the 11-year period of 2004–2014. Missing insurance status information was an exclusion criterion. In total, 30,175 patients were included for analysis. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included overall and intra- and postoperative complications. Bi- and multivariate analyses were performed, adjusted for insurance status, age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status category, type of injury, and surgeon’s level of experience. Results In total, 76.8% ( n  = 23,196) of the patients were publicly insured. Patients with public insurance were significantly younger ( p  
ISSN:1863-9933
1863-9941
DOI:10.1007/s00068-021-01689-x