Infusing disability equity within rehabilitation education and practice: A qualitative study of lived experiences of ableism, allyship, and healthcare partnership

Background Addressing issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has become central in implementing inclusive and socially responsible rehabilitation education and clinical practice. Yet, the constructs of disability and d/Deaf identity and culture, as well as ableism and allyship are often overlooked. Or, these concepts are approached using outdated philosophical perspectives that pathologize disability and fail to prioritize the lived experiences, expertise, intersectionality, and self-identified needs of people with disabilities. A Critical Disability Studies (CDS) framework may provide a background for better understanding and responding to these issues through allyship. Purpose This study employed a CDS framework to understand the lived experiences of ableism and allyship from faculty, staff, and students on University of Washington (UW) campuses who identify as d/Deaf, disabled/with a disability, or as having a chronic health condition. Methods During 2020–2021, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 22 diverse undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, and staff with disabilities, one third who also identified as people of color. Encounters were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded using constant comparison until themes emerged. Results Four major themes that emerged from the data are: (1) Ever-present ableism in healthcare, (2) Ableism at the intersections, (3) COVID: Surfacing ableism and expanding access, and (4) Disability allyship and healthcare partnership building. Experiences of ableism and allyship were identified at individual, group/unit, and institutional/systemic levels, though participants reported significantly fewer instances of allyship compared to experiences of ableism. Participants identified intersections between disability and other marginalized identities and juxtaposed the benefits of widespread adoption of many access-increasing practices and technologies due to the COVID-19 pandemic, while also highlighting ways in which the pandemic created new obstacles to inclusion. Conclusions This analysis provides insights into ways of implementing inclusive practices in rehabilitation education, practice, and beyond. Rehabilitation students, faculty, and staff may not be aware of how ableism affects their disabled peers or underpins their professional education. It is important to cultivate opportunities within professional education and clinical training to explicitly address our collective role in creating inclusive and accessible academic and healthcare experiences for our diverse community post COVID-19. Drawing on a CDS framework, the research team devised the mnemonic TRAC, which includes Training, Recognition and Representation, Attendance and Action, and Calling to account as strategic guidelines for operationalizing such opportunities.

A Qualitative Protocol to Examine Resilience Culture in Healthcare Teams during COVID-19.

Resilience allows teams to function at their optimal capacity and skill level in times of uncertainty. The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic created a perfect opportunity to study resilience culture during a time of limited healthcare team experience, protocols, and specific personal protective equipment (PPE) needed. Little is known about healthcare team resilience as a phenomenon; existing definitions and empiric referents do not capture the nature of healthcare team resilience, as the traditional focus has been placed on individual resilience. This qualitative research protocol provides the rationale and methodology to examine this phenomenon and builds a bridge between resilience engineering and individual resilience. The sample is composed of healthcare team members from the US. This research may add to the body of knowledge on resilience culture in healthcare teams during the COVID-19 pandemic. This qualitative research protocol paper outlines the rationale, objective, methods, and ethical considerations entailed in this research.

Surgery and the Smartphone: Can Technology Improve Equitable Access to Surgical Care?

Unfortunately, many patients in the United States experience disparities in access to surgical care, including geographic constraints, limited transportation and time, and financial hardships. Living in a "surgical care desert" results in a delay in care, driving up health care costs and reducing quality of care. In the age of COVID-19, patient access to health care has been further diminished by physical distancing guidelines, naturally increasing the need for innovative telehealth solutions. In this review, we focus on using smartphones for mobile health technology (mHealth) in the delivery of surgical care. This study is aimed at a general surgical audience that may be interested in exploring how mHealth can improve both access and health care quality for surgical patients and their families. We review the current uses of mHealth by surgeons for surgical site infection, new models of the perioperative surgical home, acute care surgical triage, remote patient monitoring devices, and evaluation and management of surgical consultations in the patient's home. We also review institutional and governmental barriers to the adoption of mHealth and offer some preliminary solutions that may aid the surgeon who wishes to implement this technology in their day-to-day practice.

Where did the patients go? Changes in acute appendicitis presentation and severity of illness during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic restricted movement of individuals and altered provision of health care, abruptly transforming health care-use behaviors. It serves as a natural experiment to explore changes in presentations for surgical diseases including acute appendicitis. The objective was to determine if the pandemic was associated with changes in incidence of acute appendicitis compared to a historical control and to determine if there were associated changes in disease severity. METHODS: The study is a retrospective, multicenter cohort study of adults (N = 956) presenting with appendicitis in nonpandemic versus pandemic time periods (December 1, 2019-March 10, 2020 versus March 11, 2020-May 16, 2020). Corresponding time periods in 2018 and 2019 composed the historical control. Primary outcome was mean biweekly counts of all appendicitis presentations, then stratified by complicated (n = 209) and uncomplicated (n = 747) disease. Trends in presentations were compared using difference-in-differences methodology. Changes in odds of presenting with complicated disease were assessed via clustered multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: There was a 29% decrease in mean biweekly appendicitis presentations from 5.4 to 3.8 (rate ratio = 0.71 [0.51, 0.98]) after the pandemic declaration, with a significant difference in differences compared with historical control (P = .003). Stratified by severity, the decrease was significant for uncomplicated appendicitis (rate ratio = 0.65 [95% confidence interval 0.47-0.91]) when compared with historical control (P = .03) but not for complicated appendicitis (rate ratio = 0.89 [95% confidence interval 0.52-1.52]); (P = .49). The odds of presenting with complicated disease did not change (adjusted odds ratio 1.36 [95% confidence interval 0.83-2.25]). CONCLUSION: The pandemic was associated with decreased incidence of uncomplicated appendicitis without an accompanying increase in complicated disease. Changes in individual health care-use behaviors may underlie these differences, suggesting that some cases of uncomplicated appendicitis may resolve without progression to complicated disease.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Antibiotics with Appendectomy for Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic therapy has been proposed as an alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, nonblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy (10-day course) with appendectomy in patients with appendicitis at 25 U.S. centers. The primary outcome was 30-day health status, as assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better health status; noninferiority margin, 0.05 points). Secondary outcomes included appendectomy in the antibiotics group and complications through 90 days; analyses were prespecified in subgroups defined according to the presence or absence of an appendicolith. RESULTS: In total, 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) underwent randomization; 776 were assigned to receive antibiotics (47% of whom were not hospitalized for the index treatment) and 776 to undergo appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure). Antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of 30-day EQ-5D scores (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.001 to 0.03). In the antibiotics group, 29% had undergone appendectomy by 90 days, including 41% of those with an appendicolith and 25% of those without an appendicolith. Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.98); the higher rate in the antibiotics group could be attributed to those with an appendicolith (20.2 vs. 3.6 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.11 to 15.38) and not to those without an appendicolith (3.7 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.43). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.50). CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of results of a standard health-status measure. In the antibiotics group, nearly 3 in 10 participants had undergone appendectomy by 90 days. Participants with an appendicolith were at a higher risk for appendectomy and for complications than those without an appendicolith. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; CODA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02800785.).

Development of a Sterile Personal Protective Equipment Donning and Doffing Procedure to Protect Surgical Teams from SARS-CoV-2 Exposure during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become an increasingly challenging problem throughout the world. Because of the numerous potential modes of transmission, surgeons and all procedural staff represent a unique population that requires standardized procedures to protect themselves and their patients. Although several protocols have been implemented during other infectious disease outbreaks, such as Ebola virus, no standardized protocol has been published in regard to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A multidisciplinary team of two surgeons, an anesthesiologist, and an infection preventionist was assembled to create a process with sterile attire adapted from the National Emerging Special Pathogen Training and Education Center (NETEC) donning and doffing process. After editing, a donning procedure and doffing procedure was created and made into checklists. The procedures were simulated in an empty operating room (OR) with simulation of all personnel roles. A "dofficer" role was established to ensure real-time adherence to the procedures. Results: The donning and doffing procedures were printed as one-page documents for easy posting in ORs and procedural areas. Pictures from the simulation were also obtained and made into flow chart-style diagrams that were also posted in the ORs. Conclusions: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a quickly evolving pandemic that has spread all over the globe. With the rapid increase of infections and the increasing number of severely ill individuals, healthcare providers need easy-to-follow guidelines to keep themselves and patients as safe as possible. The processes for donning and doffing personal protective equipment (PPE) presented here provide an added measure of safety to surgeons and support staff to provide quality surgical care to positive and suspected COVID-19-positive patients.

Surgical Infection Society Guidance for Operative and Peri-Operative Care of Adult Patients Infected by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-associated viral infection (coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19) is a virulent, contagious viral pandemic that is affecting populations worldwide. As with any airborne viral respiratory infection, surgical and non-surgical patients may be affected. Methods: Review and synthesis of pertinent English-language literature pertaining to COVID-19 infection among adult patients. Results: COVID-19 disease that requires hospitalization results in critical illness approximately 25% of the time and requires mechanical ventilation with positive airway pressure. Acute kidney injury, a marked hypercoagulable state, and sometimes myocarditis can be features of COVID-19 in addition to the characteristic severe acute lung injury. Even if not among the most seriously afflicted, older patients with medical comorbidities are both predisposed to infection and risk increased morbidity and mortality, however, all persons presenting for surgical intervention should be suspected of infection (and thus transmissibility) even if asymptomatic. Although most elective surgery has been curtailed by administrative or governmental fiat, patients will still need urgent or emergency operative intervention for time-sensitive disease processes such as malignant neoplasia or for true emergencies such as perforated viscus or traumatic injury. It is possible to provide safe surgical care for SARS-CoV-2-positive patients and minimize nosocomial transmission to healthcare workers. Conclusions: This guidance will facilitate appropriate protection of patients and staff, and maintenance of infection control measures to assist surgical personnel and facilities to prepare for COVID-19-infected adult patients requiring urgent or emergent operative intervention and to provide optimal patient care.