Differences in Presentation and Management of Pediatric Facial Lacerations by Type of Health Insurance

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Differences in Presentation and Management of Pediatric Facial Lacerations by Type of Health Insurance

Citable link to this page

 

 
Title: Differences in Presentation and Management of Pediatric Facial Lacerations by Type of Health Insurance
Author: Amanullah, Siraj; Linakis, James G.; Vivier, Patrick M.; Clarke-Pearson, Emily; Steele, Dale W.

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: Amanullah, Siraj, James G. Linakis, Patrick M. Vivier, Emily Clarke-Pearson, and Dale W. Steele. 2015. “Differences in Presentation and Management of Pediatric Facial Lacerations by Type of Health Insurance.” Western Journal of Emergency Medicine 16 (4): 527-534. doi:10.5811/westjem.2015.4.25009. http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2015.4.25009.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: Introduction: Limited data are available regarding differences in presentation and management of pediatric emergency department (PED) patients based on insurance status. The objective of the study was to assess the difference in management of pediatric facial lacerations based on medical insurance status. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study with universal sampling of patients with facial lacerations who were treated in an urban PED (45K visits/year) over a one-year period. Demographic features and injury characteristics for patients with commercial (private) insurance and those with Medicaid or Medicare (public) insurance were compared. Results: Of 1235 children included in the study, 667 (54%) had private insurance and 485 (39%) had public insurance. The two groups did not differ in age or gender, arrival by ambulance, location of injury occurrence, mechanism of injury, part of face involved, length or depth of laceration, use of local anesthetic, or method of repair but differed in acuity assigned at triage. Patients with public insurance were found less likely to have subspecialty consultation in bivariable (OR=0.41, 95% CI [0.24–0.68]) and multivariable logistic regression analyses (OR=0.45, 95% CI [0.25–0.78]). Patients with public insurance received procedural sedation significantly less often than those with private insurance (OR=0.48, 95% CI [0.29–0.76]). This difference was not substantiated in multivariable models (OR=0.74, 95% CI [0.40–1.31]). Conclusion: Patients with public insurance received less subspecialty consultation compared to privately insured patients despite a similarity in the presentation and characteristics of their facial lacerations. The reasons for these disparities require further investigation.
Published Version: doi:10.5811/westjem.2015.4.25009
Other Sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4530910/pdf/
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:21461903
Downloads of this work:

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters