HEAL Network

Abstract

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) predominantly affects older adults. Lower incidence among younger patients may challenge diagnosis.We hypothesize that among patients ≤ 50 years old, emergent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for STEMI is delayed when compared with patients aged > 50 years.This 3-year, 10-center retrospective cohort study included emergency department (ED) STEMI patients ≥ 18 years of age treated with emergent PCI. We excluded patients with an electrocardiogram (ECG) completed prior to ED arrival or a nondiagnostic initial ECG. Our primary outcome was door-to-balloon (D2B) time. We compared characteristics and outcomes among younger vs. older STEMI patients, and among age subgroups.There were 576 ED STEMI PCI patients, of whom 100 were ≤ 50 years old and 476 were > 50 years old. Median age was 44 years in the younger cohort (interquartile range [IQR] 41-47) vs. 62 years (IQR 57-70) among older patients. Median D2B time for the younger cohort was 76.5 min (IQR 67.5-102.5) vs. 81.0 min (IQR 65.0-105.5) in the older cohort (p = 0.91). This outcome did not change when ages 40 or 45 years were used to demarcate younger vs. older. The younger cohort had a higher prevalence of nonwhite races (38% vs. 21%; p < 0.001) and those currently smoking (36% vs. 23%; p = 0.005). The very young (≤30 years; 6/576) and very old (>80 years; 45/576) had 5.51 and 2.2 greater odds of delays.We found no statistically significant difference in D2B times between patients ≤ 50 years old and those > 50 years old. Nonwhite patients and those who smoke were disproportionately represented within the younger population. The very young and very old had higher odds of D2B times > 90 min.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jemermed.2021.01.031

View details for PubMedID 33676790

Abstract

The US physician workforce does not represent the racial or ethnic diversity of the population it serves.To assess whether the proportion of US physician trainees of Black race and Hispanic ethnicity has changed over time and then provide a conceptual projection of future trends.Cross-sectional, retrospective, analysis based on 11 years of publicly available data paired with recent US census population estimates.A total of 86,303 (2007-2008) to 103,539 (2017-2018) resident physicians in the 20 largest US Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education resident specialties.Changes in proportion of physician trainees of Black race and Hispanic ethnicity per academic year. Projected number of years it will then take, for specialties with positive changes, to reach proportions of Black race and Hispanic ethnicity comparable to that of the US population.Among the 20 largest specialty training programs, Radiology was the only specialty with a statistically significant increase in the proportion of Black trainees, but it could take Radiology 77 years to reach levels of Black representation comparable to that of the US population. Obstetrics/Gynecology, Emergency Medicine, Internal Medicine/Pediatrics, and Orthopedic Surgery demonstrated a statistically significant increase in the proportion of Hispanic trainees, but it could take these specialties 35, 54, 61, and 93 years respectively to achieve Hispanic representation comparable to that of the US population.Among US residents in the 20 largest specialties, no specialty represented either the Black or Hispanic populations in proportions comparable to the overall US population. Only a small number of specialties demonstrated statistically significant increases. This conceptual projection suggests that current efforts to promote diversity are insufficient.

View details for DOI 10.1007/s11606-021-06650-7

View details for PubMedID 33629264

Abstract

From the perspective of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centers, locations of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) diagnosis can include a referring facility, emergency medical services (EMS) transporting to a PCI center, or the PCI center's emergency department (ED). This challenges the use of door-to-balloon-time as the primary evaluative measure of STEMI treatment pathways. Our objective was to identify opportunities to improve care by quantifying differences in the timeliness of STEMI treatment mobilization based on the location of the diagnostic ECG.This 3-year, single-center, retrospective cohort study classified patients by diagnostic ECG location: referring facility, EMS, or PCI center ED. We quantified door-to-balloon-time and diagnosis-to-balloon-time with its care subintervals.Of 207 ED STEMI patients, 180 (87%) received PCI. Median diagnosis-to-balloon-times were shortest among the ED-diagnosed (78 minutes [interquartile range (IQR), 61-92]), followed by EMS-identified patients (89 minutes [IQR, 78-122]), and longest among those referred (140 minutes [IQR, 119-160]), reflecting time for transport to the PCI center. Conversely, referred patients had the shortest median door-to-balloon-times (38 minutes [IQR, 34-43]), followed by the EMS-identified (64 minutes [IQR, 47-77]), whereas ED-diagnosed patients had the longest (89 minutes [IQR, 70-114]), reflecting diagnosis and catheterization lab activation frequently occurring before PCI center ED arrival for referred and EMS-identified patients.Diagnosis-to-balloon-time and its care subintervals are complementary to the traditional door-to-balloon-times as measures of the STEMI treatment process. Together, they highlight opportunities to improve timely identification among ED-diagnosed patients, use of out-of-hospital cath lab activation for EMS-identified patients, and encourage pathways for referred patients to bypass PCI center EDs.

View details for DOI 10.1002/emp2.12379

View details for PubMedID 33644777

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC7890036

View details for DOI 10.1111/acem.13978

Abstract

Telephone call programs are a common intervention used to improve patients' transition to outpatient care after hospital discharge.To examine the impact of a follow-up telephone call program as a readmission reduction initiative.Pragmatic randomized controlled real-world effectiveness trial.We enrolled and randomized all patients discharged home from a hospital general medicine service to a follow-up telephone call program or usual care discharge. Patients discharged against medical advice were excluded. The intervention was a hospital program, delivering a semistructured follow-up telephone call from a nurse within 3-7 days of discharge, designed to assess understanding and provide education, and assistance to support discharge plan implementation.Our primary endpoint was hospital inpatient readmission within 30 days identified by the electronic health record. Secondary endpoints included observation readmission, emergency department revisit, and mortality within 30 days, and patient experience ratings.All 3054 patients discharged home were enrolled and randomized to the telephone call program (n=1534) or usual care discharge (n=1520). Using a prespecified intention-to-treat analysis, we found no evidence supporting differences in 30-day inpatient readmissions [14.9% vs. 15.3%; difference -0.4 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI), -2.9 to 2.1; P=0.76], observation readmissions [3.8% vs. 3.6%; difference 0.2 (95% CI, -1.1 to 1.6); P=0.74], emergency department revisits [6.1% vs. 5.4%; difference 0.7 (95% CI, -1.0 to 2.3); P=0.43], or mortality [4.4% vs. 4.9%; difference -0.5 (95% CI, -2.0 to 1.0); P=0.51] between telephone call and usual care groups.We found no evidence of an impact on 30-day readmissions or mortality due to the postdischarge telephone call program.

View details for DOI 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001353

View details for PubMedID 32732787

View details for DOI 10.1038/s41588-021-00956-2

View details for PubMedID 34608296

Abstract

Ensuring healthcare access is critical to maintain health and prevent illness. Studies demonstrate gender disparities in healthcare access. Less is known about how these vary with age, race/ethnicity, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. We utilized cross-sectional data from 2016 to 2019 CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), a U.S. telephone-based survey of adults (≥18 years). Measures of difficulty accessing healthcare included absence of healthcare coverage, delay in healthcare access, absence of primary care physician, >1-year since last checkup, inability to see doctor due to cost, and cost-related medication non-adherence. We studied the association between gender and these variables using multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models, stratifying by age, race/ethnicity, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease status. Our population consisted of 1,737,397 individuals; 54% were older (≥45 years), 51% women, 63% non-Hispanic White, 12% non-Hispanic Black,17% Hispanic, 9% reported atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. In multivariable-adjusted models, women were more likely to report delay in healthcare access: odds ratio (OR) and (95% confidence interval): 1.26 (1.11, 1.43) [p < 0.001], inability to see doctor due to cost: 1.29 (1.22, 1.36) [p < 0.001], cost-related medication non-adherence: 1.24 (1.01, 1.50) [p 0.04]. Women were less likely to report lack of healthcare coverage: 0.71 (0.66, 0.75) [p < 0.001] and not having a primary care physician: 0.50 (0.48, 0.52) [p < 0.001]. Disparities were pronounced in younger (<45 years) and Black women. Identifying these barriers, particularly among younger women and Black women, is crucial to ensure equitable healthcare access to all individuals.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106779

View details for PubMedID 34487748

View details for DOI 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000001288

View details for PubMedID 34480192

Abstract

[Figure: see text].

View details for DOI 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.16905

View details for PubMedID 34379440

Abstract

Women physicians and those from racial and ethnic groups underrepresented in medicine face unique barriers to career advancement in academic medicine, especially in specialties that lack diversity such as radiology. One such barrier is the effect of unconscious bias on the ability of faculty from these groups to find effective sponsors. Given the central role of sponsorship in career advancement, departments are called upon to implement formal sponsorship programs to address inequities stemming from bias.

View details for DOI 10.2214/AJR.21.26481

View details for PubMedID 34467782

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Faculty diversity is a high-priority goal for academic emergency medicine. Most administrators currently monitor faculty diversity using aggregate data, which may obscure underrepresentation by rank. We apply the Rank Equity Index (REI), to EM faculty data to assess rank progression.METHODS: We calculated the REI (% faculty cohort higher rank / % faculty cohort lower rank) for EM faculty. We performed REI analyses by faculty gender (women, men) and race/ethnicity (white, Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian). We compared: Professor/ Assistant Professor, Professor/ Associate Professor, and Associate Professor/ Assistant Professor to establish rank parity for gender and race/ethnicity. Parity is an REI of 1.0.RESULTS: REI analysis by gender demonstrates that women faculty did not achieve parity at any rank comparison in any study year. REI analysis by race/ethnicity demonstrates that all faculty of color are below parity at the assistant to associate professor promotion. Latinx faculty are at parity for associate professor to professor, but Asian and Black faculty do not achieve parity in any comparison. Intersecting gender and race/ethnicity in the REI analysis demonstrates that Asian women have the lowest REIs among all faculty ranks and races/ethnicities. Men of all races/ethnicities achieved parity in two of three rank comparisons, except for Black men, who did not achieve parity in any comparison.CONCLUSIONS: REI analysis demonstrates EM women faculty and faculty of color are not achieving rank parity and are disadvantaged at the first tier of promotion. A preliminary longitudinal trend analysis suggests little progress. Asian women and Black men experience the most rank inequity. REI analysis identifies a need for focused faculty development to enhance our most vulnerable faculty's rank progression, suggesting that targeted recruitment and retention efforts of women faculty of all races/ethnicities and faculty of color, in particular, will improve diversity at every tier of faculty rank.

View details for DOI 10.1111/acem.14268

View details for PubMedID 33909327

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported satisfaction scores, including the Press Ganey surveys, are increasingly used as measures for quality healthcare among surgical subspecialties. However, the influence of surgeon sociodemographics is not clear.METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed Press Ganey surveys linked to outpatient surgical visits at a single academic institution from January 2015 to December 2018 as they related to surgeon age, gender, and race. The primary outcome variable was achievement of a top-box score (5/5) on likelihood to recommend surgeon queries. Secondary analysis examined the relationship of likelihood to recommend surgeon to other survey questions, such as those regarding surgeon courtesy, concern, understandability, patient inclusion in medical decision making, and patient confidence in surgeon. chi2 tests and generalized estimating equation regression models were run to assess correlation.RESULTS: In bivariate analysis of 36,840 surveys, non-Hispanic white surgeons were more likely to receive likelihood to recommend surgeon top-box ratings than Asian (P < .001) or underrepresented minority surgeons (P < .001). Additionally, male gender (P < .01) and older surgeon age (P < .001) were associated with higher top-box scores. However, in multivariate generalized estimating equation analysis, the effect of age was no longer significant, but female gender continued to be associated with lower odds of top-box likelihood to recommend surgeon ratings (odds ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.70%-0.99%), as did Asian compared with white race (odds ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.65%-0.95%). Likelihood to recommend surgeon scores correlated most closely with patients' "confidence" in the surgeon rather than measures of courtesy, concern, understandability, or inclusion in medical decision making.CONCLUSION: Top-box scores varied by surgeon race and gender in correlation with patients' perceived confidence in the provider. Interpretation of Press Ganey scores should account for potential bias in patient satisfaction surveys based on surgeon demographics.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.surg.2020.12.006

View details for PubMedID 33531133

View details for Web of Science ID 000582792300243

Abstract

As educators, researchers, clinicians, and administrators, faculty serve pivotal roles in academic medical centers (AMCs). Thus, the quality of faculty members' experiences is inseparable from an AMC's success. In seeking new methods to assess equity in advancement in academic medicine, the authors developed the Rank Equity Index (REI)-adapted from the Executive Parity Index, a scale previously implemented within the business sector-to examine national data on gender and racial/ethnic equity across faculty ranks. The REI was employed on self-reported demographic data, collected by the Association of American Medical Colleges, from U.S. medical school faculty in 2017, to make pairwise rank comparisons of the professoriate by demographic characteristics and department. Overall results indicated that women did not attain parity at any pairwise rank comparison, while men were above parity at all ranks. Similar results were observed across all departments surveyed: women in the basic sciences had REIs closest to parity, women in pediatrics had the highest representation but had REIs that were further from parity than the REIs in the basic sciences, and women in surgery demonstrated the lowest REIs. Nationally, REIs were below 1.00 for all racial/ethnic group rank comparisons except for White and, in one case, multiple race non-Hispanic/Latinx. Across all analyzed departments, Black/African American, Asian, Hispanic/Latinx, and multiple race Hispanic/Latinx faculty had REIs below parity at all ranks except in two cases. In a comparison of 2017 and 2007 data, REIs across both race/ethnicity and gender were lower in 2007 for nearly all groups. REI analyses can highlight inequities in faculty rank that may be masked when using aggregate faculty proportions, which do not account for rank. The REI provides AMCs with a new tool to better analyze institutional data to inform efforts to increase parity across all faculty ranks.

View details for DOI 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003720

View details for PubMedID 32889948