Urban-Rural Differences in Health Care Utilization and COVID-19 Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Two studies in Pennsylvania aimed to determine whether community type and community socioeconomic deprivation (CSD) 1) modified associations between type 2 diabetes (hereinafter, diabetes) and COVID-19 hospitalization outcomes, and 2) influenced health care utilization among individuals with diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The hospitalization study evaluated a retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through 2020 for COVID-19 outcomes: death, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, elevated D-dimer, and elevated troponin level. We used adjusted logistic regression models, adding interaction terms to evaluate effect modification by community type (township, borough, or city census tract) and CSD. The utilization study included patients with diabetes and a clinical encounter between 2017 and 2020. Autoregressive integrated moving average time-series models evaluated changes in weekly rates of emergency department and outpatient visits, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) laboratory tests, and antihyperglycemic medication orders from 2018 to 2020. RESULTS: In the hospitalization study, of 2,751 patients hospitalized for COVID-19, 1,020 had diabetes, which was associated with ICU admission and elevated troponin. Associations did not differ by community type or CSD. In the utilization study, among 93,401 patients with diabetes, utilization measures decreased in March 2020. Utilization increased in July, and then began to stabilize or decline through the end of 2020. Changes in HbA1c tests and medication order trends during the pandemic differed by community type and CSD. CONCLUSION: Diabetes was associated with selected outcomes among individuals hospitalized for COVID-19, but these did not differ by community features. Utilization trajectories among individuals with diabetes during the pandemic were influenced by community type and CSD and could be used to identify individuals at risk of gaps in diabetes care.

A single center evaluation of applicant experiences in virtual interviews across eight internal medicine subspecialty fellowship programs.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most graduate medical education (GME) training programs conducted virtual interviews for prospective trainees during the 2020-2021 application cycle. Many internal medicine (IM) subspecialty fellowship programs hosted virtual interviews for the first time with little published data to guide best practices.To evaluate how IM subspecialty fellowship applicants perceived the virtual interview day experience.We designed a 38-item questionnaire that was sent via email to applicants in eight IM subspecialty programs at a single tertiary academic medical center (University of California, San Francisco) from September-November, 2020.Seventy-five applicants completed the survey (75/244, 30.7%), including applicants from all eight fellowship programs. Most survey respondents agreed that the length of the virtual interview day (mean = 6.4 hours) was long enough to gather the information they needed (n = 65, 86.7%) and short enough to prevent fatigue (n = 55, 73.3%). Almost all survey respondents agreed that they could adequately assess the clinical experience (n = 71, 97.3%), research opportunities (n = 72, 98.6%), and program culture (n = 68, 93.2%). Of the respondents who attended a virtual educational conference, most agreed it helped to provide a sense of the program's educational culture (n = 20, 66.7%). Areas for improvement were identified, with some survey respondents reporting that the virtual interview day was too long (n = 11) or that they would have preferred to meet more fellows (n = 10).Survey respondents indicated that the virtual interview was an adequate format to learn about fellowship programs. These findings can inform future virtual interviews for GME training programs.

Virtual Interviews at Graduate Medical Education Training Programs: Determining Evidence-Based Best Practices.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the nation's health care system, including on graduate medical education (GME) training programs. Traditionally, residency and fellowship training program applications involve in-person interviews conducted on-site, with only a minority of programs offering interviews remotely via a virtual platform. However, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is anticipated that most interviews will be conducted virtually for the 2021 application cycle and possibly beyond. Therefore, GME training programs need to prepare for the transition to virtual interviews using evidence-based practices. At the University of California, San Francisco, a multidisciplinary task force was convened to review existing literature about virtual interviews and determine best practices. This article summarizes these findings, first discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the virtual interview format and then providing evidence-based best practices for GME training programs. Specifically, the authors make the following recommendations: develop a detailed plan for the interview process, consider using standardized interview questions, recognize and respond to potential biases that may be amplified with the virtual interview format, prepare your own trainees for virtual interviews, develop electronic materials and virtual social events to approximate the interview day, and collect data about virtual interviews at your own institution. With adequate preparation, the virtual interview experience can be high yield, positive, and equitable for both applicants and GME training programs.

Clinical outcomes and serologic response in solid organ transplant recipients with COVID-19: A case series from the United States.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused significant morbidity and mortality for patients and stressed healthcare systems worldwide. The clinical features, disease course, and serologic response of COVID-19 among immunosuppressed patients such as solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients, who are at presumed risk for more severe disease, are not well characterized. We describe our institutional experience with COVID-19 among 10 SOT patients, including the clinical presentation, treatment modalities, and outcomes of 7 renal transplant recipients, 1 liver transplant recipient, 1 heart transplant recipient, and 1 lung transplant recipient. In addition, we report the serologic response in SOT recipients, documenting a positive IgG response in all 7 hospitalized patients. We also review the existing literature on COVID-19 in SOT recipients to consolidate the current knowledge on COVID-19 in the SOT population for the transplant community.