Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Dig Dis Sci ; 67(4): 1209-1212, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1772955


BACKGROUND: Gender-based differences in the use of professional titles during speaker introductions have been described in other medical specialties. AIMS: Our primary aim was to assess gender-based differences in the formality of speaker introductions at the American College of Gastroenterology 2020 Virtual Annual Scientific Meeting. Our secondary aim was to assess gender-based differences in the formality of speaker self-introductions. METHODS: Reviewed presentations from the American College of Gastroenterology Annual Meeting for gender-based differences in professional title use during speaker introductions and self-introductions. RESULTS: Speakers included 29 women (37.2%) and 49 men (62.8%). We found no significant gender differences in the use of professional titles by introducers (t(67) = - 0.775, p = 0.441) or in self-introductions (36.4% of women vs. 41.9% of men, t(63) = 0.422, p = 0.674). CONCLUSION: The lack of gender differences in professional title use may represent a novel advantage of virtual meeting formats or suggest increased attention to gender bias in introductions.

Gastroenterology , Medicine , Educational Status , Female , Humans , Male , Sexism , Societies, Medical , United States
Clin Transl Gastroenterol ; 12(6): e00365, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1249736


INTRODUCTION: The initial surge of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic prompted national recommendations to delay nonurgent endoscopic procedures. The objective of this study was to provide real-world data on the impact of COVID-19 on endoscopic procedures in a safety-net healthcare system and cancer center affiliated with a tertiary academic center. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used a combination of electronic health record data and a prospective data tool created to track endoscopy procedures throughout COVID-19 to describe patient and procedural characteristics of endoscopic procedures delayed during the initial COVID-19 surge. RESULTS: Of the 480 patients identified, the median age was 57 years (interquartile range 46-66), 55% (n = 262) were male, and 59% self-identified as white. Colonoscopy was the most common type of delayed procedure (49%), followed by combined esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy (22%), and EGD alone (20%). Colorectal cancer screening was the most common indication for delayed colonoscopy (35%), and evaluation of suspected bleeding (30%) was the most common indication for delayed combined EGD and colonoscopy. To date, 46% (223/480) of delayed cases have been completed with 12 colorectal, pancreatic, and stomach cancers diagnosed. Sociodemographic factors, procedure type, and sedation type were not significantly associated with endoscopy completion. The median time to endoscopy after delayed procedure was 88 days (interquartile range 63-119) with no differences by procedure type. DISCUSSION: To minimize potential losses to follow-up, delayed, or missed diagnoses and to reduce progression of gastrointestinal diseases, all efforts should be used to ensure follow-up in those whose endoscopic procedures were delayed because of COVID-19.

COVID-19/epidemiology , Delayed Diagnosis , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/statistics & numerical data , Gastrointestinal Diseases/diagnosis , Pandemics , Aged , Female , Gastrointestinal Diseases/therapy , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Time-to-Treatment , Washington/epidemiology
Postgrad Med J ; 97(1153): 706-715, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-889925


OBJECTIVES: To determine how self-reported level of exposure to patients with novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) affected the perceived safety, training and well-being of residents and fellows. METHODS: We administered an anonymous, voluntary, web-based survey to a convenience sample of trainees worldwide. The survey was distributed by email and social media posts from April 20th to May 11th, 2020. Respondents were asked to estimate the number of patients with COVID-19 they cared for in March and April 2020 (0, 1-30, 31-60, >60). Survey questions addressed (1) safety and access to personal protective equipment (PPE), (2) training and professional development and (3) well-being and burnout. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 1420 trainees (73% residents, 27% fellows), most commonly from the USA (n=670), China (n=150), Saudi Arabia (n=76) and Taiwan (n=75). Trainees who cared for a greater number of patients with COVID-19 were more likely to report limited access to PPE and COVID-19 testing and more likely to test positive for COVID-19. Compared with trainees who did not take care of patients with COVID-19 , those who took care of 1-30 patients (adjusted OR [AOR] 1.80, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.51), 31-60 patients (AOR 3.30, 95% CI 1.86 to 5.88) and >60 patients (AOR 4.03, 95% CI 2.12 to 7.63) were increasingly more likely to report burnout. Trainees were very concerned about the negative effects on training opportunities and professional development irrespective of the number of patients with COVID-19 they cared for. CONCLUSION: Exposure to patients with COVID-19 is significantly associated with higher burnout rates in physician trainees.

Attitude of Health Personnel , COVID-19/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Internship and Residency/organization & administration , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Female , Humans , Infection Control/organization & administration , Male , Personal Protective Equipment , Personnel Staffing and Scheduling , Safety , Self Report , Surveys and Questionnaires , Telemedicine , Young Adult