Does payer status matter in predicting penetrating trauma outcomes?


    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Background.Few data exist regarding payer status as a predictor of outcomes in penetrating trauma. This study determined whether insurance status impacts in-hospital complications and mortality in gunshot and stab wound patients at our inner-city, level I trauma center.Methods.Penetrating trauma admissions from 2005 to 2009 were reviewed for patient demographics, insurance, Injury Severity Score, complications, duration of stay, and mortality.Results.A total of 1,347 penetrating trauma patients were admitted with 652 (48.4%) uninsured. Although uninsured patients were more likely to be male (93.3% vs 89.8%, P = .030), there was no difference in age, ISS, or number of radiologic, operative, or interventional procedures. Uninsured patients had lesser intensive care unit (4.4 vs 3.3 days; P = .049) and total hospital length of stay (10.2 vs 8.3; P = .049). No uninsured patients were placed into a rehabilitation facility at the time of discharge (0.0% vs 1.6%, P < .001). There was no difference in frequency of pulmonary complications, thromboembolic complications, sepsis, urinary tract infection, or wound infections. On multivariate analysis, being uninsured was not an independent predictor of in-hospital complications (1.010, 95% confidence interval 0.703–1.450, P = .959) or mortality (odds ratio 0.905, 95% confidence interval 0.523–1.566, P = .722).Conclusion.This is the first study to show that penetrating trauma patients who are uninsured have lesser duration of stay and decreased placement into a rehabilitation facility. Being uninsured added no additional risk of in-hospital complications or mortality.

    loading  Loading Related Articles