ABSTRACT
Introduction: Innovative discovery begins with diverse perspectives; research teams should harness this model. Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) and women are underrepresented as researchers. Team science leverages collaborative and cross-disciplinary approaches to diversify the research workforce, and introduces academic (and non-academic) faculty with limited research exposure/experience to clinical research. Methods: In 2020, two Black women academic physicians implemented an academic collaborative - COVID-19 Characteristics, Readmissions, Outcomes, and Social Determinants of Health (CROSS) - to investigate COVID-19 health inequities, with intentional recruitment of BIPOC and women. The 37 CROSS team members were of diverse races, ethnicities, sex, specialties, and disciplines, and represented eight hospitals. Team members were electronically surveyed to determine their interest, desired activities, and level of participation in research activities; concurrently, self-identified demographics (including race, ethnicity, sex, and language(s) spoken) were obtained. Results: All team members completed the survey: 78.4% (n = 29) were BIPOC and 78.4% (n = 29) were women. Team members spoke 18 languages (including English). Academic medical ranks included Assistant Professor (32.4%; n = 12), Associate Professor (16.2%; n = 6), and Full Professor (2.7%; n = 1). Each member identified desired activities (data collection, data analytics, manuscript development, abstract development/poster presentation, serving as a consultant) and the percentage of time they intended to allocate to each. Between June 2020 and February 2023, the team produced five original peer-reviewed manuscripts (including this article); five members served as first or senior authors. Twenty-one abstracts were presented at local conferences, and 10 at national and regional conferences. Five members achieved academic promotion, and team members were awarded three intramural grants resulting directly from team collaborations. Conclusion: Intentional recruitment and assessment of team members' desired levels of participation in an integrated clinical research team is an effective strategy to engage BIPOC and women. The CROSS Collaborative is a model for diversity and inclusion in team science and clinical research.
ABSTRACT
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy among health care workers (HCWs) undermines community vaccine confidence. Predictors and reasons for HCW hesitancy in the Atlanta region were evaluated using a survey between May and June 2021. Vaccine hesitancy was highest in younger and less educated HCWs. Interventions to address vaccine hesitancy in HCWs are necessary.
ABSTRACT
COVID-19 readmissions are associated with increased patient mortality and healthcare system strain. This retrospective cohort study of PCR-confirmed COVID-19 positive adults (>18 years) hospitalized and readmitted within 30 days of discharge from index admission was performed at eight Atlanta hospitals from March to December 2020. The objective was to describe COVID-19 patient-level demographics and clinical characteristics, and community-level social determinants of health (SDoH) that contribute to 30-day readmissions. Demographics, comorbidities, COVID-19 treatment, and discharge disposition data were extracted from the index admission. ZIP codes were linked to a demographic/lifestyle database interpolating to community-level SDoH. Of 7155 patients with COVID-19, 463 (6.5%) had 30-day, unplanned, all-cause hospital readmissions. Statistically significant differences were not found in readmissions stratified by age, sex, race, or ethnicity. Patients with a high-risk Charlson Comorbidity Index had higher odds of readmission (OR 4.8 (95% CI: 2.1 to 11.0)). Remdesivir treatment and intensive care unit (ICU) care were associated with lower odds of readmission (OR 0.5 (95% CI: 0.4 to 0.8) and OR 0.5 (95% CI: 0.4 to 0.7), respectively). Patients residing in communities with larger average household size were less likely to be readmitted (OR 0.7 (95% CI: 0.5 to 0.9). In this cohort, patients who received remdesivir, were cared for in an ICU, and resided in ZIP codes with higher proportions of residents with increased social support had lower odds of readmission. These patient-level factors and community-level SDoH may be used to identify patients with COVID-19 who are at increased risk of readmission.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Patient Readmission , Adult , Hospitals , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Social Determinants of HealthABSTRACT
Little is known about cancellation frequencies in telemedicine vs. in-person appointments and its impact on clinical outcomes. Our objective was to examine differences between in-person and video telemedicine appointments in terms of cancellation rates by age, race, ethnicity, gender, and insurance, and compare 30-day inpatient hospitalizations rates and 30-day emergency department visit rates between the two visit types. Demographic characteristics and comorbidities for adults scheduled for an Emory Healthcare ambulatory clinic appointment from June 2020 to December 2020 were extracted from the electronic medical record. Each appointment was identified as either a video telemedicine or in-person clinic appointment. The outcomes were ambulatory clinic cancellation rates, 30-day hospitalization rates, and 30-day emergency department visit rates. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess differences between appointment types. A total of 1,652,623 ambulatory clinic appointments were scheduled. Ambulatory appointment cancellations rates were significantly lower among telemedicine compared to in-person appointments overall (20.4% vs. 31.0%, p < .001) and regardless of gender, age, race, ethnicity, insurance, or specialty (p < .05 for all sub-groups). Telemedicine appointments were associated with lower 30-day hospitalization rates compared to in-person appointments (AOR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.71-0.74). There was no difference in 30-day emergency department visit rates between telemedicine and in-person appointment patients (AOR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98-1.02). Our findings suggest that there are fewer barriers to attending an ambulatory care visit via telemedicine relative to in-person. Using video telemedicine was not associated with more frequent adverse clinical events compared with in-person visits.
ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on the ongoing pandemic of racial injustice. In the context of these twin pandemics, emergency medicine organizations are declaring that "Racism is a Public Health Crisis." Accordingly, we are challenging emergency clinicians to respond to this emergency and commit to being antiracist. This courageous journey begins with naming racism and continues with actions addressing the intersection of racism and social determinants of health that result in health inequities. Therefore, we present a social-ecological framework that structures the intentional actions that emergency medicine must implement at the individual, organizational, community, and policy levels to actively respond to this emergency and be antiracist.
Subject(s)
Emergency Medical Services , Emergency Medicine , Health Status Disparities , Racism , Social Determinants of Health , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cultural Competency , Cultural Diversity , Emergency Medical Services/organization & administration , Emergency Medicine/education , Emergency Medicine/organization & administration , Health Policy , Humans , Pandemics , Prejudice , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
Cultural mistrust of government with regard to health issues has pressed the need to engage trusted community leaders with influence and reach in disproportionately affected communities to ensure that essential public health activities related to COVID-19 occur among populations experiencing disproportionate impact from the pandemic. In April of 2020, a Georgia-based integrated academic health care system created a Community Outreach and Health Disparities Collaborative to unite trusted community leaders from faith-based, civic, and health-sector organizations to work with the health system and Emory University to develop tailored approaches and mobilize support within the context of the communities' cultural and individual needs to reduce the burden of COVID-19. We describe the framework used to join health care and academic collaborators with community partners to mobilize efforts to address the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic minority groups. The framework outlines a series of steps taken that led to a community-driven collaboration designed to engage local influential community leaders as partners in improving access to care for disproportionately affected communities, collaborations that could be replicated by other large health care systems. This framework can also be applied to other chronic diseases or future public health emergencies to improve communication, education, and health care access for communities experiencing disproportionate impact.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/therapy , Community Health Services/organization & administration , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Public Health Administration , SARS-CoV-2 , Health Status Disparities , Healthcare Disparities , HumansABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Black patients are disproportionately affected by COVID-19. The purpose of this study was to compare risks of hospitalization of Black and non-Black COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department and, of those hospitalized, to compare mortality and acute kidney injury. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 831 adult COVID-19 patients (68.5% Black) who presented to the emergency departments of four academic hospitals, March 1, 2020-May 31, 2020. The primary outcome was risk of hospitalization among Blacks vs. non-Blacks. Secondary outcomes were mortality and acute kidney injury, among hospitalized patients. RESULTS: The crude odds of hospitalization were not different in Black vs. non-Black patients; however, with adjustment for age, Blacks had 55% higher odds of hospitalization. Mortality differed most in the model adjusted for age alone. Acute kidney injury was more common in the Black hospitalized patients, regardless of adjustment. Stratified analyses suggested that disparities in the risk of hospitalization and of in-hospital acute kidney injury were highest in the youngest patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our report shows that Black and non-Black patients presenting to the emergency department with COVID-19 had similar risks of hospitalization and, of those who were hospitalized, similar mortality when adjusted for multiple factors. Blacks had higher risk of acute kidney injury. Our results suggest that examination of disparities without exploration of the individual effects of age and comorbidities may mask important patterns. While stratified analyses suggest that disparities in outcomes may differ substantially by age and comorbid conditions, further exploration among these important subgroups is needed to better target interventions to reduce disparities in COVID-19 clinical outcomes.