Search

Background: Transgender and gender nonbinary (trans/NB) individuals face many barriers to accessing health care in the United States due to systemic and clinician discrimination. Such experiences can lead to avoidance or delays in seeking care. These issues are relevant for emergency department (ED) clinicians and staff because trans/NB patients may use the ED in times of crisis.Objectives: The purpose of this study was to qualitatively explore experiences of trans/NB individuals accessing health care in the ED and provide recommendations for improvements.Methods: This study involved semi-structured qualitative interviews with nine trans/NB individuals living in Arkansas about their experiences when visiting local EDs.Results: Interviews revealed four main themes: 1) system and structural issues; 2) interactions with clinicians/staff influence care received; 3) perceptions of clinician knowledge and education about trans/NB health; and 4) impact on future health and health care access. Participants recommended education for current and future ED clinicians and staff to improve knowledge of best practices for trans/NB health care. Recommendations were also made to improve ED policy for inclusive and affirming intake processes, intake forms, and electronic health record (EHR) documentation, including documentation and use of patients' chosen name and pronouns.Conclusion: The negative experiences and discrimination reported by trans/NB patients in ED visits underscores the importance of improving ED clinician knowledge of gender-affirming care practices, ED intake policies and practices, and EHR documentation in EDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic not only exacerbated barriers to healthcare but has also highlighted the trend toward increased vaccine hesitancy. Our goal was to improve COVID-19 vaccine uptake through a student-led, emergency department-based (ED) vaccination program. Methods: This prospective, quality-improvement pilot program used medical and pharmacy student volunteers as COVID-19 vaccine screeners in a southern, urban, academic ED. Patients eligible for vaccination were offered either the Janssen-Johnson & Johnson or the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and were educated about vaccine concerns. Vaccine acceptance rates were recorded, as well as reasons for vaccine hesitancy, vaccine brand preferences, and demographics. The primary and secondary quantitative outcomes were overall vaccine acceptance and change in vaccine acceptance after student-provided education, respectively. We performed logistic regression to identify potential variables that correlated with vaccine acceptance. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, focus group interviews with four key stakeholder groups explored implementation facilitators and barriers. Results: We screened 406 patients for COVID-19 vaccination eligibility and current vaccine status, the majority of whom were unvaccinated. Of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients, vaccine acceptance before education was 28.3% (81/286), and vaccine acceptance after education was 31.5% (90/286) (% difference, 3.1% [95% CI 0.3%-5.9%], P=0.03). The most common hesitancy factors cited were concerns about side effects and safety. Results from the regression analysis indicated that increasing age and Black race were associated with an increased odds of vaccine acceptance. Focus groups revealed implementation barriers, including patient resistance and workflow issues, and facilitators, including student involvement and public health promotion. Conclusion: Using medical and pharmacy student volunteers as COVID-19 vaccine screeners was successful, and brief education provided by the students led to a modest increase in vaccine acceptance, with overall acceptance of 31.5%. Numerous educational benefits are described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]