Search

Background Medical educational societies have emphasized the inclusion of marginalized populations, including the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) population, in educational curricula. Lack of inclusion can contribute to health inequality and mistreatment due to unconscious bias. Little didactic time is spent on the care of LGBTQ+ individuals in emergency medicine (EM) curricula. Simulation based medical education can be a helpful pedagogy in teaching cross-cultural care and communication skills. In this study, we sought to determine the representation of the LGBTQ+ population in EM simulation curricula. We also sought to determine if representations of the LGBTQ+ population depicted stigmatized behavior. Methods We reviewed 971 scenarios from six simulation case banks for LGBTQ+ representation. Frequency distributions were determined for major demographic variables. Chi-Squared or Fisher’s Exact Test, depending on the cell counts, were used to determine if relationships existed between LGBTQ+ representation and bank type, author type, and stigmatized behavior. Results Of the 971 scenarios reviewed, eight (0.82%) scenarios explicitly represented LGBTQ+ patients, 319 (32.85%) represented heterosexual patients, and the remaining 644 (66.32%) did not specify these patient characteristics. All cases representing LGBTQ+ patients were found in institutional case banks. Three of the eight cases depicted stigmatized behavior. Conclusions LGBTQ+ individuals are not typically explicitly represented in EM simulation curricula. LGBTQ+ individuals should be more explicitly represented to reduce stigma, allow EM trainees to practice using gender affirming language, address health conditions affecting the LGBTQ+ population, and address possible bias when treating LGBTQ+ patients.

Introduction: Medicine is increasingly influenced by politics, but physicians have historically had lower voter turnout than the general public. Turnout is even lower for younger voters. Little is known about the political interests, voting activity, or political action committee (PAC) involvement of emergency physicians in training. We evaluated EM trainees’ political priorities, use of and barriers to voting, and engagement with an emergency medicine (EM) PAC. Methods: Resident/medical student Emergency Medicine Residents’ Association members were emailed a survey between October–November 2018. Questions involved political priorities, perspective on single-payer healthcare, voting knowledge/behavior, and EM PACs participation. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics. Results: Survey participants included 1,241 fully responding medical students and residents, with a calculated response rate of 20%. The top three healthcare priorities were as follows: 1) high cost of healthcare/price transparency; 2) decreasing the number of uninsured; and 3) quality of health insurance. The top EM-specific issue was ED crowding and boarding. Most trainees (70%) were supportive of single-payer healthcare: “somewhat favor” (36%) and “strongly favor” (34%). Trainees had high rates of voting in presidential elections (89%) but less frequent use of other voting options: 54% absentee ballots; 56% voting in state primary races; and 38% early voting. Over half (66%) missed voting in prior elections, with work cited as the most frequent (70%) barrier. While overall, half of respondents (62%) reported awareness of EM PACs, only 4% of respondents had contributed. Conclusion: The high cost of healthcare was the top concern among EM trainees. Survey respondents had a high level of knowledge of absentee and early voting but less frequently used these options. Encouragement of early and absentee voting can improve voter turnout of EM trainees. Concerning EM PACs, there is significant room for membership growth. With improved knowledge of the political priorities of EM trainees, physician organizations and PACs can better engage future physicians.

Abstract Background Sepsis affects 1.7 million patients in the US annually, is one of the leading causes of mortality, and is a major driver of US healthcare costs. African American/Black and LatinX populations experience higher rates of sepsis complications, deviations from standard care, and readmissions compared with Non-Hispanic White populations. Despite clear evidence of structural racism in sepsis care and outcomes, there are no prospective interventions to mitigate structural racism in sepsis care, nor are we aware of studies that report reductions in racial inequities in sepsis care as an outcome. Therefore, we will deliver and evaluate a coalition-based intervention to equip health systems and their surrounding communities to mitigate structural racism, driving measurable reductions in inequities in sepsis outcomes. This paper presents the theoretical foundation for the study, summarizes key elements of the intervention, and describes the methodology to evaluate the intervention. Methods Our aims are to: (1) deliver a coalition-based leadership intervention in eight U.S. health systems and their surrounding communities; (2) evaluate the impact of the intervention on organizational culture using a longitudinal, convergent mixed methods approach, and (3) evaluate the impact of the intervention on reduction of racial inequities in three clinical outcomes: a) early identification (time to antibiotic), b) clinical management (in-hospital sepsis mortality) and c) standards-based follow up (same-hospital, all-cause sepsis readmissions) using interrupted time series analysis. Discussion This study is aligned with calls to action by the NIH and the Sepsis Alliance to address inequities in sepsis care and outcomes. It is the first to intervene to mitigate effects of structural racism by developing the domains of organizational culture that are required for anti-racist action, with implications for inequities in complex health outcomes beyond sepsis.

Introduction: To describe structural changes that can be made in an emergency medicine residency program to increase diversity and foster an inclusive environment.Methods: We established a diversity committee to introduce several simultaneous structural changes focusing on resident recruitment, education and engagement. Some of these changes include establishment of a scholarship to recruit visiting students from diverse backgrounds and a second look weekend for minority applicants. Others focused on ensuring residency didactics, were inclusive and addressed topics pertaining to diversity in emergency medicine.Results: We increased the number of minority residents underrepresented in medicine matching in our program from zero to between 2 and 4 annually. We increased the percentage of women matching in our program from 33% to 47%. We worked with residency leadership to increase the number of didactics focusing on diversity and inclusion.Conclusions: Implementation of a Diversity Committee in emergency medicine training programs can be an important tool to improve diversity on a structural level.

Introduction: Urine drug screens (UDS) have unproven clinical utility in emergency department (ED) chest pain presentations. A test with such limited clinical utility may exponentiate biases in care, but little is known about the epidemiology of UDS use for this indication. We hypothesized that UDS utilization varies nationally across race and gender. Methods: This was a retrospective observational analysis of adult ED visits for chest pain in the 2011–2019 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. We calculated the utilization of UDS across race/ethnicity and gender and then characterized predictors of use via adjusted logistic regression models. Results: We analyzed 13,567 adult chest pain visits, representative of 85.8 million visits nationally. Use of UDS occurred for 4.6% of visits (95% CI 3.9%–5.4%). White females underwent UDS at 3.3% of visits (95% CI 2.5%–4.2%), and Black females at 4.1% (95% CI 2.9%–5.2%). White males were tested at 5.8% of visits (95% CI 4.4%–7.2%), while Black males were tested at 9.3% of visits (95% CI 6.4%–12.2%). A multivariate logistic regression model including race, gender, and time period shows significantly increased odds of ordering UDS for Black patients (odds ratio [OR] 1.45 (95% CI 1.11–1.90, p = 0.007)) and male patients (OR 2.0 (95% CI 1.55–2.58, p < 0.001) as compared to White patients and female patients. Conclusion: We identified wide disparities in the utilization of UDS for the evaluation of chest pain. If UDS were used at the rate observed for White women, Black men would undergo nearly 50,000 fewer tests annually. Future research should weigh the potential of the UDS to magnify biases in care against the unproven clinical utility of the test.

IntroductionFewer than half of internal medicine program directors report any health disparities curriculum. We piloted a web-based healthcare disparities module among internal medicine (IM) residents to test effectiveness and feasibility, compared to a convenient sample of graduate students enrolled in a public health equity course.MethodsIM residents participated in an in-person session (module 1: introduction to racial and ethnic health disparities), but first, they completed a pre-module knowledge quiz. Two weeks later, they completed module 2: “unconscious associations” and a post-module knowledge quiz. For the control arm Yale School of Public Health (YSPH) students enrolled in a course on health disparities completed the pre-module knowledge quiz, module 1, and 2 as required by their course instructor.ResultsForty-nine IM residents and 22 YSPH students completed the pre-module quiz and Module 1. The mean (SD) score out of 25 possible points for the IM residents on the pre-module quiz was 16.1/25 (2.8), and 16.6/25 (3.2) for YSPH students, with no statistically significant difference. Nineteen residents (38.8%) completed the post-module quiz with a mean score of 16.7/25 (2.2), Hedge's g =0.23, compared to 18 (81.8%) YSPH students, whose mean (SD) score was 19.5/25 (2.1), Hedge's g=1.05. YSPH students' post-module quiz average was statistically significantly higher than their pre-module test score, as well as the residents' post-module test (P < 0.001). In examining participants' responses to specific questions, we found that 51% (n = 25) of residents wrongly defined discrimination with an emphasis on attitudes and intent as opposed to actions and impact, compared to 22.7% (n = 5) YSPH students before the module, vs. 63.2% (n = 12) and 88.9% (n = 16) respectively after.ConclusionAfter completing a healthcare disparities course, graduate students in public health saw greater gains in knowledge compared to IM residents. Residents' responses showed knowledge gaps such as understanding discrimination, and highlight growth opportunity in terms of health equity education. Furthermore, embedding health equity education in required curricular activities may be a more effective approach.

The transition from medical school to residency is a critical step in the careers of physicians. Because of the standardized application process-wherein schools submit summative Medical Student Performance Evaluations (MSPE's)-it also represents a unique opportunity to assess the possible prevalence of racial and gender disparities, as shown elsewhere in medicine.The authors conducted textual analysis of MSPE's from 6,000 US students applying to 16 residency programs at a single institution in 2014-15. They used custom software to extract demographic data and keyword frequency from each MSPE. The main outcome measure was the proportion of applicants described using 24 pre-determined words from four thematic categories ("standout traits", "ability", "grindstone habits", and "compassion").The data showed significant differences based on race and gender. White applicants were more likely to be described using "standout" or "ability" keywords (including "exceptional", "best", and "outstanding") while Black applicants were more likely to be described as "competent". These differences remained significant after controlling for United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores. Female applicants were more frequently described as "caring", "compassionate", and "empathic" or "empathetic". Women were also more frequently described as "bright" and "organized".While the MSPE is intended to reflect an objective, summative assessment of students' qualifications, these data demonstrate for the first time systematic differences in how candidates are described based on racial/ethnic and gender group membership. Recognizing possible implicit biases and their potential impact is important for faculty who strive to create a more egalitarian medical community.