Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:01:07.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cross-Sectional Study of the Impact of a Natural Disaster on the Delivery of Gynecologic Oncology Care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2015

Gizelka David-West ,
Fernanda Musa ,
Melissa K. Frey ,
Leslie Boyd ,
Bhavana Pothuri ,
John P. Curtin  and
Stephanie V. Blank
Gizelka David-West*
Affiliation:
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York.
Fernanda Musa
Affiliation:
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York.
Melissa K. Frey
Affiliation:
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York.
Leslie Boyd
Affiliation:
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York.
Bhavana Pothuri
Affiliation:
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York.
John P. Curtin
Affiliation:
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York.
Stephanie V. Blank
Affiliation:
Division of Gynecologic Oncology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York.
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Gizelka David-West, MD, 550 First Ave NBV 9E2, New York, NY 10016 (e-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

We aimed to compare access to gynecologic oncology care at a private and a city hospital, both of which closed for a period of time because of Hurricane Sandy.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study of gynecologic oncology chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgical patients from October 29, 2012 (the eve of the storm), to February 7, 2013 (the reopening of the city hospital). New referrals during this time were excluded. Delays in chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery were compared.

Results

Analysis included 113 patients: 59 private patients (52.2%) and 54 city patients (47.8%). Of the private patients, 33/59 received chemotherapy (55.9%), 1/59 received radiotherapy (1.7%), and 28/59 had planned surgery (47.5%). Of the city patients, 40/54 received chemotherapy (74.1%), 7/54 received radiotherapy (12.3%), and 18/54 had planned surgery (33.3%). The mean delay in chemotherapy was 7.6 days at the private hospital and 21.7 days at the city hospital (P=0.0004). The mean delay in scheduled surgery was 14.2 days at the private hospital and 22.7 days at the city hospital (P=0.3979). The mean delay in radiotherapy was 0.0 days at the private hospital and 25.0 days at the city hospital (P=0.0046). Loss to follow-up rates were 3/59 of the private patients (5.1%) and 3/54 of the city patients (5.6%).

Conclusions

Gynecologic oncology care was maintained during a natural disaster despite temporary closure and relocation of services. Disparity in care was in access to chemotherapy. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;9:605–608)

Keywords

delivery of health carehurricanenatural disasterspatient transferquality of health care
Type
Brief Reports
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 9 , Issue 6 , December 2015 , pp. 605 - 608
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Rhoads, KF, Ngo, JV, Ma, Y, et al. Do hospitals that serve a high percentage of Medicaid patients perform well on evidence-based guidelines for colon cancer care? J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2013;24:1180-1193.Google Scholar
2. Boyd, LR, Novetsky, AP, Curtin, JP. Ovarian cancer care for the underserved: are surgical patterns of care different in a public hospital setting? Cancer. 2011;117:777-783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Pua, TL, Arslan, AA, Curtin, JP, et al. Outcomes of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer in a private versus public hospital setting. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;108:S152-S152.Google Scholar
4. Harmon, RE, Boulmay, BC. Restoration of medical oncology services at LSU Interim Public Hospital in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina: a two-year experience of LSUHSC. Journal of Lousiana State Medical Society. 2011;163(3):144-147.Google Scholar
5. Ullman, K. Cancer Care During Natural Disasters. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(24):1819-1820. doi:10.1093/jnci/djr527.Google Scholar
6. Loen, B, Pou, AM, Nuss, DW, et al. Factors affecting access to head and neck cancer care after a natural disaster: a post-Hurricane Katrina survey. Head Neck. 2011;33(1):37-44. doi: 10.1002/hed.21393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Rosen, Y, Yakubov, N. Hurricane Sandy: lessons learned from the severely damaged Coney Island Hospital. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2013;28:643.Google Scholar
8. Perez, CA, Grigsby, PW, Castro-Vita, H, et al. Carcinoma of the uterine cervix. I. Impact of prolongation of overall treatment time and timing of brachytherapy on outcome of radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;32:1275-1288.Google Scholar
9. Powell, T, Hanfling, D, Gostin, LO. Emergency preparedness and public health: the lessons of Hurricane Sandy. JAMA. 2012;308:2569-2570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Abramson, DM, Redlener, I. Hurricane sandy: lessons learned, again. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2012;6:328-329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar