Logo image
Back
Provider-to-provider telemedicine for sepsis is used less frequently in communities with high social vulnerability
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Provider-to-provider telemedicine for sepsis is used less frequently in communities with high social vulnerability

Kevin J Tu, J Priyanka Vakkalanka, Uche E Okoro, Karisa K Harland, Cole Wymore, Brian M Fuller, Kalyn Campbell, Morgan B Swanson, Edith A Parker, Luke J Mack, …
The Journal of rural health, Vol.41(1), e12861
01/2025
DOI: 10.1111/jrh.12861
PMCID: PMC11635342
PMID: 38924559
url
https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12861View
Published (Version of record) Open Access

Abstract

Sepsis disproportionately affects patients in rural and socially vulnerable communities. A promising strategy to address this disparity is provider-to-provider emergency department (ED)-based telehealth consultation (tele-ED). The objective of this study was to determine if county-level social vulnerability index (SVI) was associated with tele-ED use for sepsis and, if so, which SVI elements were most strongly associated.PURPOSESepsis disproportionately affects patients in rural and socially vulnerable communities. A promising strategy to address this disparity is provider-to-provider emergency department (ED)-based telehealth consultation (tele-ED). The objective of this study was to determine if county-level social vulnerability index (SVI) was associated with tele-ED use for sepsis and, if so, which SVI elements were most strongly associated.We used data from the TELEmedicine as a Virtual Intervention for Sepsis in Rural Emergency Department study. The primary exposures were SVI aggregate and component scores. We used multivariable generalized estimating equations to model the association between SVI and tele-ED use.METHODSWe used data from the TELEmedicine as a Virtual Intervention for Sepsis in Rural Emergency Department study. The primary exposures were SVI aggregate and component scores. We used multivariable generalized estimating equations to model the association between SVI and tele-ED use.Our study cohort included 1191 patients treated in 23 Midwestern rural EDs between August 2016 and June 2019, of whom 326 (27.4%) were treated with tele-ED. Providers in counties with a high SVI were less likely to use tele-ED (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31‒0.87), an effect principally attributable to the housing type and transportation component of SVI (aOR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.89). Providers who treated fewer sepsis patients (1‒10 vs. 31+ over study period) and therefore may have been less experienced in sepsis care, were more likely to activate tele-ED (aOR = 3.91, 95% CI 2.08‒7.38).FINDINGSOur study cohort included 1191 patients treated in 23 Midwestern rural EDs between August 2016 and June 2019, of whom 326 (27.4%) were treated with tele-ED. Providers in counties with a high SVI were less likely to use tele-ED (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31‒0.87), an effect principally attributable to the housing type and transportation component of SVI (aOR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.89). Providers who treated fewer sepsis patients (1‒10 vs. 31+ over study period) and therefore may have been less experienced in sepsis care, were more likely to activate tele-ED (aOR = 3.91, 95% CI 2.08‒7.38).Tele-ED use for sepsis was lower in socially vulnerable counties and higher among providers who treated fewer sepsis patients. These findings suggest that while tele-ED increases access to specialized care, it may not completely ameliorate sepsis disparities due to its less frequent use in socially vulnerable communities.CONCLUSIONSTele-ED use for sepsis was lower in socially vulnerable counties and higher among providers who treated fewer sepsis patients. These findings suggest that while tele-ED increases access to specialized care, it may not completely ameliorate sepsis disparities due to its less frequent use in socially vulnerable communities.

Details

Metrics

78 Record Views
Logo image