How Were Conflicts of Interest Handled?

Conflicts of interest were potentially great but they were minimized by the great conviction from both Doctors and Health Ministry that something had to be done to improve data on perinatal health. To decrease the number of hospitals where deliveries took place, to concentrate doctors, nurses and equipment, to define staff and to acquire equipment and to train nurses and paediatricians was the way. One the point of view of cost-effectiveness, centralization of expensive technologies, and development of expertise concentrating cases in a same centre - Surgery, VLBW, etc- and lowering mortality rates and get better outcomes were clear health gains. In 1989 after the political decision of closing small maternities the committee return to villages and cities to explain to political local power and people, the decision, which kind of care they will have in the future, why and expected gains. Level I hospitals and Health Centers stop to have deliveries; Health Centers were given a great responsibility: the follow up of the most part of the normal pregnancies by GP. There was no economic pressure because the National Health Service is free, there are no economic incentives for obstetrical or neonatal care, hospitals are financed through ICD, hospital level is defined according to both delivery and newborn care. In 1989 the rule was “No results can be obtained without the interested and responsible participation of all – institutions and people”. At that time the emphasis was on training. There are geographic influences on regionalization for example for islands and inner and far geographic areas. Also we would like to emphasize the influence of demographics on regionalization. As birth rate continues to decrease the hospitals left open 20 years ago with more than 1500 deliveries have to be closed now because the number of deliveries decreased. It was much more difficult and unacceptable to close some few maternities now than 20 years ago. All the difference was that at that time reasons were explained and now it was a Minister order. Other fearful events are the opening of private hospitals, the lowering gross national income, the economic difficulties and financial problems.

Low Socioeconomic Status is an Independent Risk Factor for Survival After Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair and Open Surgery for Peripheral Artery Disease

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: The association between socioeconomic status (SES), presentation, and outcome after vascular surgery is largely unknown. This study aimed to determine the influence of SES on post-operative survival and severity of disease at presentation among vascular surgery patients in the Dutch setting of equal access to and provision of care. METHODS: Patients undergoing surgical treatment for peripheral artery disease (PAD), abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), or carotid artery stenosis between January 2003 and December 2011 were retrospectively included. The association between SES, quantified by household income, disease severity at presentation, and survival was studied using logistic and Cox regression analysis adjusted for demographics, and medical and behavioral risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 1,178 patients were included. Low income was associated with worse post-operative survival in the PAD cohort (n = 324, hazard ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.10, per 5,000 Euro decrease) and the AAA cohort (n = 440, quadratic relation, p = .01). AAA patients in the lowest income quartile were more likely to present with a ruptured aneurysm (odds ratio [OR] 2.12, 95% CI 1.08-4.17). Lowest income quartile PAD patients presented more frequently with symptoms of critical limb ischemia, although no significant association could be established (OR 2.02, 95% CI 0.96-4.26). CONCLUSIONS: The increased health hazards observed in this study are caused by patient related factors rather than differences in medical care, considering the equality of care provided by the study setting. Although the exact mechanism driving the association between SES and worse outcome remains elusive, consideration of SES as a risk factor in pre-operative decision making and focus on treatment of known SES related behavioral and psychosocial risk factors may improve the outcome of patients with vascular disease.