Search

Background: The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) has long recognized and championed increasing diversity within the surgical workplace. SAGES initiated the Fundamentals of Leadership Development (FLD) Curriculum to address these needs and to provide surgeon leaders with the necessary tools and skills to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in surgical practice. In 2019, the American College of Surgeons issued a request for anti-racism initiatives which lead to the partnering of the two societies. The primary goal of FLD was to create the first surgeon-focused leadership curriculum dedicated to DEI. The rationale/development of this curriculum and its evaluation/feedback methods are detailed in this White Paper. Methods: The FLD curriculum was developed by a multidisciplinary task force that included surgeons, education experts, and diversity consultants. The curriculum development followed the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation (ADDIE) instructional design model and utilized a problem-based learning approach. Competencies were identified, and specific learning objectives and assessments were developed. The implementation of the curriculum was designed to be completed in short intervals (virtual and in-person). Post-course surveys used the Kirkpatrick's model to evaluate the curriculum and provide valuable feedback. Results: The curriculum consisted of interactive online modules, an online discussion forum, and small group interactive sessions focused in three key areas: (1) increasing pipeline of underrepresented individuals in surgical leadership, (2) healthcare equity, and (3) conflict negotiation. By focusing on positive action items and utilizing a problem-solving approach, the curriculum aimed to provide a framework for surgical leaders to make meaningful changes in their institutions and organizations. Conclusion: The FLD curriculum is a novel leadership curriculum that provided surgeon leaders with the knowledge and tools to improve diversity in three areas: pipeline improvement, healthcare equity, and conflict negotiation. Future directions include using pilot course feedback to enhance curricular effectiveness and delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The healthcare system is ill-equipped to meet the needs of adults on the autism spectrum.Objective: Our goal was to use a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to develop and evaluate tools to facilitate the primary healthcare of autistic adults.Design: Toolkit development included cognitive interviewing and test-retest reliability studies. Evaluation consisted of a mixed-methods, single-arm pre/post-intervention comparison.Participants: A total of 259 autistic adults and 51 primary care providers (PCPs) residing in the United States.Interventions: The AASPIRE Healthcare toolkit includes the Autism Healthcare Accommodations Tool (AHAT)-a tool that allows patients to create a personalized accommodations report for their PCP-and general healthcare- and autism-related information, worksheets, checklists, and resources for patients and healthcare providers.Main Measures: Satisfaction with patient-provider communication, healthcare self-efficacy, barriers to healthcare, and satisfaction with the toolkit's usability and utility; responses to open-ended questions.Key Results: Preliminary testing of the AHAT demonstrated strong content validity and adequate test-retest stability. Almost all patient participants (>94 %) felt that the AHAT and the toolkit were easy to use, important, and useful. In pre/post-intervention comparisons, the mean number of barriers decreased (from 4.07 to 2.82, p < 0.0001), healthcare self-efficacy increased (from 37.9 to 39.4, p = 0.02), and satisfaction with PCP communication improved (from 30.9 to 32.6, p = 0.03). Patients stated that the toolkit helped clarify their needs, enabled them to self-advocate and prepare for visits more effectively, and positively influenced provider behavior. Most of the PCPs surveyed read the AHAT (97 %), rated it as moderately or very useful (82 %), and would recommend it to other patients (87 %).Conclusions: The CBPR process resulted in a reliable healthcare accommodation tool and a highly accessible healthcare toolkit. Patients and providers indicated that the tools positively impacted healthcare interactions. The toolkit has the potential to reduce barriers to healthcare and improve healthcare self-efficacy and patient-provider communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Patients are increasingly being given access to their test results, but little is known about how preferences vary with the test under consideration or the results of the test (normal or abnormal).Objective: This study was conducted to examine preferences for test result communication.Design, Setting, and Participants: We surveyed adults to explore their preferences for test result notification for three common diagnostic tests of varying "emotional impact" (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA], genital herpes, and cancer biopsy) when test results were 1) normal and 2) abnormal. We conducted our survey between June and August 2012 on the campus of an academic medical center. For each scenario, subjects were asked to rank seven methods that might be used to communicate test results (letter, unsecured email, secured email, text message, telephone call, secure Web portal, office visit) in order of acceptability.Main Outcome Measures: The main measures were the percentage of respondents who ranked a particular test result notification method favorably and the percentage who ranked it as unacceptable.Results: When test results were normal, subjects' notification preferences were generally similar for DXA, herpes and cancer biopsy, with telephone and letter ranked most favorably for all three tests. Conversely, text message and unsecured email were viewed as unacceptable notification methods for normal results by 45.0-55.0 % of subjects across all three tests. When test results were abnormal, office visits became more popular. A higher proportion of subjects ranked office visits as their most preferred notification method for our test with high "emotional impact" (cancer biopsy) (38.4 %) as compared to DXA (28.2 %) and herpes (27.9 %) (P = 0.02). For most test scenarios, younger subjects appeared to rank electronic communication modalities (secure email or Web portal) higher than older subjects, though this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.29).Conclusions: Preferences for test result notification can differ substantially depending upon the test under consideration and results of the test. Providers and health care systems should consider these factors when deciding how to communicate results to patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Latino population in the US is projected to grow substantially in the years ahead. Although often referred to as a single group, Latinos are not homogeneous. This article, based mainly on a national telephone survey of 1,478 Latino adults, examines the perspectives of six Latino heritage groups on the health care issues they face. The six groups differ in their reported health care experiences in: the types facilities they use in getting medical care, their ratings of the quality of care they receive, their experiences with discrimination in getting quality care, the level of confidence they have in being able to pay for a major illness. One thing the heritage groups agree on is that diabetes is the biggest health problem facing their families. Community health leaders, particularly at the state level, need to focus on the specific Latino groups in their state or area and their unique situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aimed to develop and provide a psychometric and feasibility pilot evaluation of the Heart Failure (HF) Symptom Tracker (HFaST), a new patient-reported tool designed to facilitate communication between patients and health care providers (HCPs) in routine clinical care. The HFaST enables patients to identify worsening HF symptoms, with a long-term goal of preventing hospitalizations or emergency room visits. Methods: The HFaST was developed drawing on evidence from the literature, qualitatively with cognitive interviews (12 patient/caregiver and 8 HCPs), and evaluated quantitatively (psychometric, feasibility assessment). The HFaST was administered for 7 consecutive days to 100 individuals diagnosed with HF during a multisite, non-interventional US pilot study. Health care providers then completed a survey assessing the feasibility and importance of the HFaST in clinical practice. Qualitative development included a literature review and cognitive interviews with patients, caregivers, and HCPs. The psychometric properties of the HFaST were evaluated using classical test theory methods. Descriptive statistics provided insight into HCPs' perceptions of the feasibility of using the HFaST in clinical practice. Results: A preliminary set of 40 items was developed for the symptom tracker and iteratively reduced to 10 items based on the qualitative phase. Test-retest reliability (weighted kappa 0.71–0.97), discriminating validity, and construct validity of the HFaST were acceptable. HCPs rated the HFaST as a good (70%) or excellent (30%) means of tracking HF symptoms. Six HFaST items were ultimately retained, covering concepts of fatigue, shortness of breath (3 items), swelling, and rapid weight gain. Conclusions: The 6-item HFaST is an easy-to-use tool designed to raise patients' awareness of HF symptoms and facilitate communication with HCPs. Future research should evaluate HFaST implementation in clinical practice and effectiveness as an intervention to potentially prevent hospitalizations and emergency room visits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]