ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Residency program directors (PDs) are tasked with supporting resident well-being, and a 2018-2019 CERA survey found PDs to be generally satisfied with residency wellness curricula. However, less is known about graduate medical education wellness programming following the unprecedented social and public health stressors of 2020. This study aimed to evaluate PDs' satisfaction with wellness programming and perceived changes in wellness program implementation in the context of these factors. METHODS: An online survey was administered by CERA to the program directors of all ACGME-accredited, US-based family medicine residencies. The survey replicated a 2018 CERA survey and assessed PDs' satisfaction with the wellness curriculum and which wellness curricular elements were currently implemented in the residency. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 263 PDs (42% response rate). There was no difference in total number of wellness curricular elements reported in programs in 2021 (M=9.85) vs 2018 (M=9.57; P=.377). Compared to the 2018 survey, PDs reported increased assessment of resident burnout (P=.02), increased scheduled time for personal needs (P=.002), but decreased scheduled time for interpersonal connection (P=.017). Most PDs reported increased emphasis on wellness and the same or increased access to wellness resources compared to 2018 χ2 indicated no significant difference in PD satisfaction with wellness programming between the two years (P=.84). CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant social and public health challenges to curriculum delivery, family medicine PDs did not perceive significant reductions in wellness programming, and in fact reported increases in some specific curricular elements and an overall increased emphasis on well-being. Future studies should explore the factors that facilitate and impede the implementation of wellness programming.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Internship and Residency , Curriculum , Education, Medical, Graduate , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
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.