Provision of Stroke Care Services by Community Disadvantage Status in the US, 2009-2022

Abstract

Stroke center certification is granted to facilities that demonstrate distinct capabilities for treating patients with stroke. A thorough understanding of structural discrimination in the provision of stroke centers is critical for identifying and implementing effective interventions to improve health inequities for socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. To determine whether (1) hospitals in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities (defined using the Area Deprivation Index) are less likely to adopt any stroke certification and (2) adoption rates differ between entry-level (acute stroke-ready hospitals) and higher-level certifications (primary, thrombectomy capable, and comprehensive) by community disadvantage status. This cohort study used newly collected stroke center data merged with data from the American Hospital Association, Healthcare Cost Report Information datasets, and the US Census. All general acute hospitals in the continental US between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2022, were included. Data analysis was conducted from July 2023 to May 2024. The primary outcome was the likelihood of hospitals adopting stroke care certification. Cox proportional hazard and competing risk models were used to estimate the likelihood of a hospital becoming stroke certified based on the socioeconomic disadvantage status of the community. Among the 5055 hospitals studied from 2009 to 2022, 2415 (47.8%) never achieved stroke certification, 602 (11.9%) were certified as acute stroke-ready hospitals, and 2038 (40.3%) were certified as primary stroke centers or higher. When compared with mixed-advantage communities, adoption of any stroke certification was most likely to occur near the most advantaged communities (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.44) and least likely near the most disadvantaged communities (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34-0.55). Adoption of acute stroke-ready certification was most likely in mixed-advantage communities, while adoption of higher-level certification was more likely in the most advantaged communities (HR,1.41; 95% CI, 1.22-1.62) and less likely for the most disadvantaged communities (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21-0.45). After adjusting for population size and hospital capacity, compared with mixed-advantage communities, stroke certification adoption hazard was still 20% lower for relatively disadvantaged communities (adjusted HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.87) and 42% lower for the most disadvantaged communities (adjusted HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.74). In this cohort study examining hospital adoption of stroke services, when compared with mixed-advantage communities, hospitals located in the most disadvantaged communities had a 42% lower hazard of adopting any stroke certification and relatively disadvantaged communities had a 20% lower hazard of adopting any stroke certification. These findings suggest that there is a need to support hospitals in disadvantaged communities to obtain stroke certification as a way to reduce stroke disparities.