Search

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has strained healthcare systems by creating a tragic imbalance between needs and resources. Governments and healthcare organizations have adapted to this pronounced scarcity by applying allocation guidelines to facilitate life-or-death decision-making, reduce bias, and save as many lives as possible. However, we argue that in societies beset by longstanding inequities, these approaches fall short as mortality patterns for historically discriminated against communities have been disturbingly higher than in the general population. Methods: We review attack and fatality rates; survey allocation protocols designed to deal with the extreme scarcity characteristic of the earliest phases of the pandemic; and highlight the larger ethical perspectives (Utilitarianism, non-Utilitarian Rawlsian justice) that might justify such allocation practices. Results: The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically amplified the dire effects of disparities with respect to the social determinants of health. Patients in historically marginalized groups not only have significantly poorer health prospects but also lower prospects of accessing high quality medical care and benefitting from it even when available. Thus, mortality among minority groups has ranged from 1.9 to 2.4 times greater than the rest of the population. Standard allocation schemas, that prioritize those most likely to benefit, perpetuate and may even exacerbate preexisting systemic injustices. Conclusions: To be better prepared for the inevitable next pandemic, we must urgently begin the monumental project of addressing and reforming the structural inequities in US society that account for the strikingly disparate mortality rates we have witnessed over the course of the current pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Li‐Fraumeni syndrome (LFS), a rare cancer predisposition syndrome caused by germline mutations in the TP53 gene, is associated with significant lifetime risk of developing cancer and warrants extensive and long‐term surveillance. There are psychosocial impacts on individuals and families living with this condition, from the initial diagnosis throughout multiple stages across the lifespan, but these impacts have not been systematically reviewed and organized. The objective of this scoping review was to synthesize and characterize the literature on psychosocial screening and outcomes, educational needs, support services, and available interventions for patients and families with LFS. A systematic search of six databases was most recently conducted in August 2020: (PubMed/MEDLINE (NLM), EMBASE (Elsevier), Cochrane Library (Wiley), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (OVID), and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics). A total of 15 757 titles were screened, and 24 articles included. Several important themes were identified across studies: factors associated with TP53 genetic testing, LFS surveillance, psychological outcomes, and communication. Findings related to these themes were organized into age‐specific categories (age agnostic/across the lifespan, childhood, adolescence and young adulthood, and adulthood). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Language and cultural barriers can impede communication between patients and clinicians, exacerbating health inequity. Additional complications can arise when family members, intending to protect their loved ones, ask clinicians to lie or not disclose to patients their diagnoses, prognoses, or intervention options. Clinicians must express respect for patients' and families' cultural, religious, and social norms regarding health care decision making, but they might also be ethically troubled by some decisions' effects on patients' health outcomes. This article suggests strategies for clinicians trying to overcome linguistic and cultural barriers to equitable patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

All medical care providers are legally and ethically bound to respect their patients' wishes. However, as patients lose decision-making capacity and approach end of life, their families or surrogates, who are confronted with grief, fear, self-doubt, and/or uncertainty, may ask physicians to provide treatment that contradicts the patients' previously stated wishes. Our work discusses the legal and ethical issues surrounding such requests and provides guidance for clinicians to ethically and compassionately respond-without compromising their professional and moral obligations to their patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Approximately 25 million people in the USA are limited English proficient (LEP). When LEP patients receive care from physicians who are truly language concordant, some evidence show that language disparities are reduced, but others demonstrate worse outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to compare the impact of language-concordant care for LEP patients with that of other interventions, including professional and ad hoc interpreters.Methods: Data was collected through a systematic review of the literature using PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE in October 2017. The literature search strategy had three main components, which were immigrant/minority status, language barrier/proficiency, and healthcare provider/patient relationship. The quality of the articles was appraised using the Downs and Black checklist.Results: The 33 studies were grouped by the outcome measure studied, including quality of care (subdivided into primary care, diabetes, pain management, cancer, and inpatient), satisfaction with care/communication, medical understanding, and mental health. Of the 33, 4 (6.9%) were randomized controlled trials and the remaining 29 (87.9%) were cross-sectional studies. Seventy-six percent (25/33) of the studies demonstrated that at least one of the outcomes assessed was better for patients receiving language-concordant care, while 15% (5/33) of studies demonstrated no difference in outcomes, and 9% (3/33) studies demonstrated worse outcomes in patients receiving language-concordant care.Discussion: The findings of this review indicate that, in the majority of situations, language-concordant care improves outcomes. Although most studies included were of good quality, none provided a standardized assessment of provider language skills. To systematically evaluate the impact of truly language-concordant care on outcomes and draw meaningful conclusions, future studies must include an assessment of clinician language proficiency. Language-concordant care offers an important way for physicians to meet the unique needs of their LEP patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]