Search

Background: Guidelines for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients receiving immunosuppression encouraged both the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) and the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13). We aimed to evaluate which pneumococcal vaccines are recommended and administered, and to understand provider and IBD patient knowledge regarding pneumococcal vaccinations., Methods: We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 357 adult IBD patients on immunosuppression in our health care system. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics were collected. The primary outcome was rate of documented vaccinations recommended by providers; the secondary outcome was rate of receipt of the vaccines. We identified factors associated with receipt of any pneumococcal vaccine through multivariable logistic regression. We also performed provider and IBD patient surveys to understand provider and patient knowledge regarding pneumococcal vaccines. We used χ 2 and Fisher exact tests to assess survey responses., Results: Fifty seven percent of IBD patients had any pneumococcal vaccination recommended and 35% had recommendations for both PPSV23 and PCV13. Forty percent received any pneumococcal vaccine and 18% received both vaccines. In multivariable analyses, increasing age (adjusted odds ratio: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.05) was associated with receipt of any pneumococcal vaccine, after adjusting for gender, race, insurance, disease activity, and time seen in our gastroenterology clinics. In the survey study, on average, 59% of providers correctly answered questions regarding pneumococcal vaccination indications., Conclusion: In our health care system, while recommendation for any pneumococcal vaccination was >50%, receipt of both PPSV23 and PCV13 was low. Simplified vaccine regimens (ie, PCV20) will likely improve vaccination rates., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: In the setting of increasing attention to representation in medicine, we aimed to assess current perspectives of racial and ethnic workforce diversity and health care disparities among gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology professionals in the United States., Methods: We developed and administered a 33-item electronic cross-sectional survey to members of 5 national GI and hepatology societies. Survey items were organized into thematic modules and solicited perspectives on racial and ethnic workforce diversity, health care disparities in GI and hepatology, and potential interventions to enhance workforce diversity and improve health equity., Results: Of the 1219 survey participants, 62.3% were male, 48.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 19.9% were from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. The most frequently reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology were insufficient representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups in the education and training pipeline (n = 431 [35.4%]), in professional leadership (n = 340 [27.9%]), and among practicing GI and hepatology professionals (n = 324 [26.6%]). Suggested interventions were to increase career mentorship opportunities (n = 545 [44.7%]), medical student opportunities (n = 520 [42.7%]), and program and professional society leadership roles for underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups (n = 473 [38.8%])., Conclusions: Our survey explored imperative and timely perspectives on racial and ethnic representation and health equity among professionals in GI and hepatology. The findings should inform future interventions to address workforce diversity and establish priorities toward improving health equity, ultimately serving as a springboard for professional societies, academic institutions, and other organizations that aim to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In the setting of increasing attention to representation in medicine, we aimed to assess current perspectives of racial and ethnic workforce diversity and health care disparities among gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology professionals in the United States., Methods: We developed and administered a 33-item electronic cross-sectional survey to members of 5 national GI and hepatology societies. Survey items were organized into thematic modules and solicited perspectives on racial and ethnic workforce diversity, health care disparities in GI and hepatology, and potential interventions to enhance workforce diversity and improve health equity., Results: Of the 1,219 survey participants, 62.3% were male, 48.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 19.9% were from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. The most frequently reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology were insufficient representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups in the education and training pipeline (n = 431 [35.4%]), in professional leadership (n = 340 [27.9%]), and among practicing GI and hepatology professionals (n = 324 [26.6%]). Suggested interventions were to increase career mentorship opportunities (n = 545 [44.7%]), medical student opportunities (n = 520 [42.7%]), and program and professional society leadership roles for underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups (n = 473 [38.8%])., Discussion: Our survey explored imperative and timely perspectives on racial and ethnic representation and health equity among professionals in GI and hepatology. The findings should inform future interventions to address workforce diversity and establish priorities toward improving health equity, ultimately serving as a springboard for professional societies, academic institutions, and other organizations that aim to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer on behalf of American College of Gastroenterology, by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Gastroenterological Association and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy by Wiley on behalf of American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and Europa Digital & Publishing. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ().)

Background and Aims: In the setting of increasing attention to representation in medicine, we aimed to assess current perspectives of racial and ethnic workforce diversity and health care disparities among gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology professionals in the United States., Approach and Results: We developed and administered a 33-item electronic cross-sectional survey to members of five national GI and hepatology societies. Survey items were organized into thematic modules and solicited perspectives on racial and ethnic workforce diversity, health care disparities in GI and hepatology, and potential interventions to enhance workforce diversity and improve health equity. Of the 1219 survey participants, 62.3% were male, 48.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 19.9% were from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. The most frequently reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology were insufficient representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups in the education and training pipeline (n = 431 [35.4%]), in professional leadership (n = 340 [27.9%]), and among practicing GI and hepatology professionals (n = 324 [26.6%]). Suggested interventions were to increase career mentorship opportunities (n = 545 [44.7%]), medical student opportunities (n = 520 [42.7%]), and program and professional society leadership roles for underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups (n = 473 [38.8%])., Conclusions: Our survey explored imperative and timely perspectives on racial and ethnic representation and health equity among professionals in GI and hepatology. The findings should inform future interventions to address workforce diversity and establish priorities toward improving health equity, ultimately serving as a springboard for professional societies, academic institutions, and other organizations that aim to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field., (© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wiley on behalf of American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Gastroenterological Association and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, by Wolters Kluwer on behalf of American College of Gastroenterology, and Europa Digital & Publishing.)

Background & Aims: In the setting of increasing attention to representation in medicine, we aimed to assess current perspectives of racial and ethnic workforce diversity and health care disparities among gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology professionals in the United States., Methods: We developed and administered a 33-item electronic cross-sectional survey to members of 5 national GI and hepatology societies. Survey items were organized into thematic modules and solicited perspectives on racial and ethnic workforce diversity, health care disparities in GI and hepatology, and potential interventions to enhance workforce diversity and improve health equity., Results: Of the 1219 survey participants, 62.3% were male, 48.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 19.9% were from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. The most frequently reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology were insufficient representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups in the education and training pipeline (n = 431 [35.4%]), in professional leadership (n = 340 [27.9%]), and among practicing GI and hepatology professionals (n = 324 [26.6%]). Suggested interventions were to increase career mentorship opportunities (n = 545 [44.7%]), medical student opportunities (n = 520 [42.7%]), and program and professional society leadership roles for underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups (n = 473 [38.8%])., Conclusions: Our survey explored imperative and timely perspectives on racial and ethnic representation and health equity among professionals in GI and hepatology. The findings should inform future interventions to address workforce diversity and establish priorities toward improving health equity, ultimately serving as a springboard for professional societies, academic institutions, and other organizations that aim to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Post-liver transplantation care is limited to tertiary care centers. Concentration at expert centers leads to high-volume clinics with long wait times and decreased accessibility., Aim: To assess whether telemedicine can be utilized to overcome barriers to care while sustaining strong patient-physician relationships., Methods: The Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire-18, Telemedicine Satisfaction Questionnaire, and Health Utilization Questionnaire were used to assess patient satisfaction and healthcare utilization among patients who received care via video connection (telemedicine group) and in clinic (control group). Propensity matching was performed. Scores for questionnaires were reported as mean and standard deviations (SD) and were compared by one-way multivariate analysis of variance and one-way analysis of variance., Results: There were 21 matched telemedicine patients in our study. Overall mean age (± SD) was 51 (± 5.62) years and 52 (± 6.12) years for telemedicine group and control group, respectively. General patient satisfaction was similar between the two groups (p = 0.89). While telemedicine patients were just as satisfied with communication and interpersonal approach compared to clinic patients, they experienced significantly less commute (p < 0.0001) and waiting (p < 0.0001) times. Given ease of using telemedicine without compromising patient-physician interaction, 90% (19/21) of the telemedicine patients opted to use the service again., Conclusion: Telemedicine appeared to be both a time and cost-saving alternative to clinic follow-up without compromise of the valuable patient-physician relationship. Telemedicine has the potential to improve clinic flow, reduce wait times, and decrease costs for liver transplant recipients.