Table 2. Comparison of proposed drivers of admission decisions, by race/ethnicity.
CHF, congestive heart failure; ED, emergency department
*for Black versus white patients, p = 0.0969
| Overall (n = 61) | Black/Latinx (n = 24) | White (n = 37) | P-Value | |
| To what extent was heart failure the reason for admission?, n (%) | 0.448 | |||
| Not at all | 5 (9.1) | 2 (11.1) | 3 (8.1) | |
| To a small extent | 3 (5.5) | 1 (5.6) | 2 (5.4) | |
| To some or a moderate extent | 10 (18.2) | 3 (16.7) | 7 (18.9) | |
| To a great or very great extent | 37 (67.3) | 12 (66.7) | 25 (67.6) | |
| To what extent were the patient’s other (non-CHF) active co-morbidities the reason for the patient’s admission?, n (%) | 0.575 | |||
| Not at all | 7 (11.5) | 4 (16.7) | 3 (8.1) | |
| To a small extent | 3 (4.9) | 1 (4.2) | 2 (5.4) | |
| To some or a moderate extent | 11 (18.0) | 4 (16.7) | 7 (18.9) | |
| To a great or very great extent | 40 (65.6) | 15 (62.5) | 25 (67.6) | |
| Did the patient have significant apparent unmet social needs (e.g., homelessness)?, n (%) | 0.636 | |||
| Yes | 1 (1.6) | 1 (4.2) | 0 (0.0) | |
| No | 59 (96.7) | 23 (95.8) | 36 (97.3) | |
| Unknown | 1 (1.6) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.7) | |
| Did the patient have significant psychiatric co-morbidities?, n (%) | >0.999 | |||
| Yes | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
| No | 58 (95.1) | 22 (91.7) | 36 (97.3) | |
| Unknown | 2 (3.3) | 1 (4.2) | 1 (2.7) | |
| Missing | 1 (1.6) | 1 (4.2) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Did the patient have significant apparent substance use?, n (%) | 0.200 | |||
| Yes | 6 (9.8) | 4 (16.7) | 2 (5.4) | |
| No | 55 (90.2) | 20 (83.3) | 35 (94.6) | |
| Did the patient and/or their family indicate a preference for admission location?, n (%) | 0.278* | |||
| Not at all | 47 (77.0) | 19 (79.2) | 28 (75.7) | |
| To a small extent | 3 (4.9) | 1 (4.2) | 2 (5.4) | |
| To some or a moderate extent | 3 (4.9) | 1 (4.2) | 2 (5.4) | |
| To a great or very great extent | 3 (4.9) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (8.1) | |
| Missing | 5 (8.2) | 3 (12.5) | 2 (5.4) | |
| If any preference was indicated, to what extent did the patient/family preference weigh into your decision for location of admission?, n (%) | 0.440 | |||
| Not at all | 2 (22.2) | 1 (50.0) | 1 (14.3) | |
| To a small extent | 1 (11.1) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (14.3) | |
| To some or a moderate extent | 4 (44.4) | 1 (50.0) | 3 (42.9) | |
| To a great or very great extent | 2 (22.2) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (28.6) | |
| What was the cardiology census was at the time of admission?, n (%) | 0.439 | |||
| Regular | 24 (39.3) | 8 (33.3) | 16 (43.2) | |
| Extreme | 37 (60.7) | 16 (66.7) | 21 (56.8) | |
| Does the patient have a Partner Cardiologist?, n (%) | 0.1170 | |||
| Yes | 37 (60.7) | 12 (50.0) | 25 (67.6) | |
| No | 24 (39.3) | 12 (50.0) | 12 (32.4) | |
| Did you speak to the patient’s cardiologist regarding the patient’s presentation to the ED or the decision to admit?, n (%) | 0.069 | |||
| Yes | 13 (21.3) | 4 (16.7) | 9 (24.3) | |
| No | 30 (49.2) | 13 (54.2) | 17 (45.9) | |
| Not applicable/missing | 18 (29.5) | 7 (29.2) | 11 (29.7) | |