Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:26:53.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Socioeconomic status and the use of computed tomography in the emergency department

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2015

Rajesh Bhayana ,
Marian J. Vermeulen ,
Qi Li ,
Chelsea R. Hellings ,
Carl Berdahl  and
Michael J. Schull
Rajesh Bhayana*
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
Marian J. Vermeulen
Affiliation:
The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON
Qi Li
Affiliation:
The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON
Chelsea R. Hellings
Affiliation:
The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON
Carl Berdahl
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT
Michael J. Schull
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
*
2075 Bayview Avenue, G106, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5; [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Background:

Low socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with adverse health outcomes. Possible explanations include differences in health status, access to health care, and care provided by clinicians. We sought to determine whether SES is associated with computed tomography (CT) use in the emergency department (ED).

Methods:

A retrospective cohort study of all Ontario ED patients (April 1, 2009, to March 31, 2010) using administrative databases was conducted, and patients were stratified into SES quintiles based on median neighbourhood income. Using multivariate logistical regression, CT scan use within SES quintiles was compared for all patients and subgroups based on chief complaints: headache, abdominal pain, and complex abdominal pain (age ≥ 65 years, high acuity, and admittance to hospital).

Results:

We analyzed 4,551,101 patient visits, of which 52% were female. Overall, 8.2% underwent CT scanning. In adjusted analyses, the lowest SES patients were less likely to undergo CT scanning overall and in all clinical subgroups, except for complex abdominal pain. Compared to the lowest SES quintile, the adjusted odds ratios of CT scanning in the highest SES quintile were 1.08 (95% CI 1.07–1.09), 1.28 (95%CI 1.22–1.34), and 1.24 (95% CI 1.21–1.27) for all patients, headache pain patients, and abdominal pain patients, respectively. For patients presenting with complex abdominal pain, no significant difference in CT use was observed.

Conclusion:

Lowest SES ED patients were less likely to receive CT scans overall and in headache and abdominal pain subgroups. No difference was seen among complex abdominal pain patients, suggesting that as clinical indications for the test become more clearcut, use across SES quintiles differs less.

Keywords

health care disparitieshealth services accessibilitysocioeconomic status
Type
Original Research • Recherche originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , July 2014 , pp. 288 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2014

References

REFERENCES

1. Adler, NE, Ostrove, JM. Socioeconomic status and heath: what we know and what we don’t. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2000;896:3–15, doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08101.x.Google Scholar
2. Shah, PC. Public health and preventative medicine in Canada. 5th ed. Toronto: Elsevier Canada; 2003.Google Scholar
3. Krajewski, SA, Hameed, SM, Smink, DS, et al. Access to emergency operative care: a comparative study between the Canadian and American health care systems. Surgery 2009;146:300–7, doi:10.1016/j.surg.2009.04.005.Google Scholar
4. Jackson, P. The impact of health insurance status on emergency room services. J Health Soc Policy 2001;14:61–74, doi:10.1300/J045v14n01_04.Google Scholar
5. Hsia, RY, Asch, SM, Weiss, RE, et al. Hospital determinants of emergency department left without being seen rates. Ann Emerg Med 2011;58:24–32, doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.01.009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Raine, R, Wong, W, Scholes, S, et al. Social variations in access to hospital care for patients with colorectal, breast, and lung cancer between 1999 and 2006: retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics BMJ 2006;340:b5479,doi:10.1136/bmj.b5479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Paszat, LF, Mackillop, WJ, Groome, PA. Radiotherapy for breast cancer in Ontario: rate variation associated with region, age, and income. Clin Invest Med 1998;21:125–34.Google ScholarPubMed
8. Alter, DA, Naylor, CD, Austin, P, et al. Effects of socioeconomic status on access to invasive cardiac procedures and on mortality after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1359–67, doi:10.1056/NEJM199910283411806.Google Scholar
9. Hawkins, NM, Jhund, PS, McMurray, JJ, et al. Heart failure and socioeconomic status: accumulating evidence of inequality. Eur J Heart Fail 2012;14:138–46, doi:10.1093/eurjhf/hfr168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Barr, HL, Britton, J, Smyth, AR, et al. Association between socioeconomic status, sex, and age at death from cystic fibrosis in England and Wales (1959 to 2008): cross sectional study BMJ 2011;243:d4662, doi:10.1136/bmj.d4662.Google Scholar
11. Moineddin, R, Meaney, C, Agha, M, et al. Modeling factors influencing the demand for emergency department services in Ontario. Emerg Med 2011;11:13.Google Scholar
12. McCusker, J, Roberge, D, Levesque, JF, et al. Emergency department visits and primary care among adults with chronic conditions. Med Care 2010;48:972–80, doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181eaf86d.Google Scholar
13. Menec, VH, Sirski, M, Attawar, D. Does continuity of care matter in a universally insured population? Health Serv Res 2005;40:389–400, doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.0p364.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Khan, Y, Glazier, RH, Moineddin, R, et al. A populationbased study of the association between socioeconomic status and emergency department utilization in Ontario, Canada. Acad Emerg Med 2011;18:836–43, doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01127.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Canadian Institute for Health Information. National Ambulatory Care Reporting System. Available at: (accessed August 1, 2012).Google Scholar
16. Statistics Canada. Postal Codes Conversion File (PCCF), reference guide. Available at: (accessed February 2, 2013).Google Scholar
17. Larson, LB, Johnson, LW, Schnell, BM, et al. National trends in CT use in the emergency department. Radiology 2011;258:164–73, doi:10.1148/radiol.10100640.Google Scholar
18. Chang, WC, Kaul, P, Westerhout, CM, et al. Effects of socioeconomic status on mortality after acute myocardial infarction. Am J Med 2007;120:33–9, doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.05.056.Google Scholar
19. Moore, L, Turgeon, AF, Sirois, MJ, et al. Influence of socioeconomic status on trauma center performance evaluations in a Canadian trauma system. J Am Coll Surg 2011;213:402–9, doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.05.007.Google Scholar
20. Safaei, J. A ride to care—a non-emergency medical transportation service in rural British Columbia. Rural Remote Health 2011;11:1637.Google Scholar
21. Friedman, SM, Vergel de Dios, J, Hanneman, K. Noncompletion of referrals to outpatient specialty clinics among patients discharged from the emergency department: a prospective cohort study. Can J Emerg Med Care 2010;12:325–30.Google Scholar
22. Brenner, DJ, Hall, EJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2277–84, doi:10.1056/NEJMra072149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Canadian Triage and Acuity Score (CTAS). Available at: (accessed August 15, 2012).Google Scholar
24. Daly, MC, Duncan, GJ, McDonough, P, et al. Optimal indicators of socioeconomic status for health research. Am J Public Health 2002;92:1151–7, doi:10.2105/AJPH.92.7.1151.Google Scholar