Heart failure & cardiomyopathies
Equity in the Setting of Heart Failure Diagnosis: An Analysis of Differences Between and Within Clinician Practices
Authors' conclusion
Differences in HF diagnosis rates in the acute care setting between and within clinician practices highlight an opportunity to improve equity in diagnosing historically marginalized patients.
Study context
- Population
- Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with incident heart failure (HF), 2013–2017
- Participants
- 315,439 beneficiaries
- Exposure
- Acute care HF diagnosis rates across sociodemographic groups, between and within outpatient clinician practices
- Outcome
- Incident HF diagnosis in acute care setting (ED or inpatient hospitalization)
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
First HF diagnosis in acute care settings
Diagnosed in acute care settings
173 121
54.9%
Higher adjusted acute care diagnosis rate: female sex
6.4%
95% CI 6.1%–6.8%
Higher adjusted acute care diagnosis rate: American Indian race
3.6%
95% CI 1.1%–6.1%
Higher adjusted acute care diagnosis rate: dual eligibility
4.1%
95% CI 3.7%–4.5%
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
| Outcome | Difference (%) (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Acute care diagnosis rate, dual-eligible vs nondual-eligible, with clinician practice adjustment · clinician practice adjustment | 4.9 (4.5%–5.4%) | |
| −50510Difference, % (linear scale) |
Clinician practice equity characteristics
- Practices with greater equity across dual eligibility also had greater equity across sex and race and ethnicity and were more likely predominantly primary care clinicians
Original publication
Equity in the Setting of Heart Failure Diagnosis: An Analysis of Differences Between and Within Clinician Practices. Circ Heart Fail. Published 7 June 2024. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it