Do Hospital Leaders Live in the Communities They Serve? A Comparative Analysis.

Purpose: Many factors contribute to persistent intractable disparities in health care, but the geographic separation of health care executives and patient communities has not been explored. From Congresspeople to police officers, individuals engaged in public service often face criticism for not living in the neighborhoods where they work. These critiques stem from the belief that to engage meaningfully with a community, one has to understand its experiences and share its interests-and geographic proximity offers one opportunity to bridge such divides. This article seeks to determine whether the senior executive leadership of American hospitals live in the same communities as their patient populations. Methods: From August 2020 to January 2021, the research team identified the leadership of the "largest" and "best" hospitals in the United States (n=68). Public directories were used to locate residential addresses. Newly released U.S. Census data provided proportions of individuals identifying as black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx in each zip code. Respective demographic proportions of hospital communities and hospital leadership residence were compared. Results: Hospitals shared the same zip codes with only three health system leaders (4.41%), seven hospital leaders (10.45%), and six deans (10.91%) of respective institutions. Hospital leadership lived in zip codes with a significantly lower proportion of black/African American (p<0.0009) and Hispanic/Latinx (p<0.0036) residents than their hospital communities. Conclusion: This article reveals significant differences between where health care leaders live and where they work. Future research should investigate the impact of residential disparities and the consequences of potential remedies on health equity.

Remote enrollment into a telehealth-delivering patient portal: Barriers faced in an urban population during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Telehealth drastically reduces the time burden of appointments and increases access to care for homebound patients. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many outpatient practices closed, requiring an expansion of telemedicine capabilities. However, a significant number of patients remain unconnected to telehealth-capable patient portals. Currently, no literature exists on the success of and barriers to remote enrollment in telehealth patient portals. From March 26 to May 8, 2020, a total of 324 patients were discharged from Mount Sinai Beth Israel (MSBI), a teaching hospital in New York City. Study volunteers attempted to contact and enroll patients in the MyChart patient portal to allow the completion of a post-discharge video visit. If patients were unable to enroll, barriers were documented and coded for themes. Of the 324 patients discharged from MSBI during the study period, 277 (85%) were not yet enrolled in MyChart. Volunteers successfully contacted 136 patients (49% of those eligible), and 39 (14%) were successfully enrolled. Inability to contact patients was the most significant barrier. For those successfully contacted but not enrolled, the most frequent barrier was becoming lost to follow-up (29% of those contacted), followed by lack of interest in remote appointments (21%) and patient technological limitations (9%). Male patients, and those aged 40-59, were significantly less likely to successfully enroll compared to other patients. Telehealth is critical for healthcare delivery. Remote enrollment in a telemedicine-capable patient portal is feasible, yet underperforms compared to reported in-person enrollment rates. Health systems can improve telehealth infrastructure by incorporating patient portal enrollment into in-person workflows, educating on the importance of telehealth, and devising workarounds for technological barriers.

Remote enrollment into a telehealth-delivering patient portal: Barriers faced in an urban population during the COVID-19 pandemic

Telehealth drastically reduces the time burden of appointments and increases access to care for homebound patients. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many outpatient practices closed, requiring an expansion of telemedicine capabilities. However, a significant number of patients remain unconnected to telehealth-capable patient portals. Currently, no literature exists on the success of and barriers to remote enrollment in telehealth patient portals. From March 26 to May 8, 2020, a total of 324 patients were discharged from Mount Sinai Beth Israel (MSBI), a teaching hospital in New York City. Study volunteers attempted to contact and enroll patients in the MyChart patient portal to allow the completion of a post-discharge video visit. If patients were unable to enroll, barriers were documented and coded for themes. Of the 324 patients discharged from MSBI during the study period, 277 (85%) were not yet enrolled in MyChart. Volunteers successfully contacted 136 patients (49% of those eligible), and 39 (14%) were successfully enrolled. Inability to contact patients was the most significant barrier. For those successfully contacted but not enrolled, the most frequent barrier was becoming lost to follow-up (29% of those contacted), followed by lack of interest in remote appointments (21%) and patient technological limitations (9%). Male patients, and those aged 40–59, were significantly less likely to successfully enroll compared to other patients. Telehealth is critical for healthcare delivery. Remote enrollment in a telemedicine-capable patient portal is feasible, yet underperforms compared to reported in-person enrollment rates. Health systems can improve telehealth infrastructure by incorporating patient portal enrollment into in-person workflows, educating on the importance of telehealth, and devising workarounds for technological barriers.

Key Insights From the Development and Implementation of a Novel Virtual Interview Process for Medical School Admissions During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PROBLEM: During the COVID-19 pandemic, medical schools have offered a virtual application process. Minimal literature is available to guide best practices. APPROACH: The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (ISMMS) implemented a completely virtual interview (VI) process in April/May 2020. Large-group sessions for applicants, interviews with applicants, and ISMMS Admissions Committee meetings occurred via Zoom (Zoom Video Communications, Inc., San Jose, California). Large-group sessions and committee meetings occurred via communal conference calls, while one-on-one, semistructured interviews occurred in individual breakout rooms. ISMMS offered live, virtual question-and-answer sessions with students and faculty, plus digital resources describing program features. After the interview day, applicants and interviewers were invited to complete anonymous surveys regarding their experiences with and perspectives of VI. OUTCOMES: Of 125 applicants and 20 interviewers, 99 (79%) and 18 (90%), respectively, completed at least part of the survey. Of the applicants, 85/95 (89%) agreed VI met or exceeded expectations, with many praising the day's organization and convenience, and 71/95 (75%) agreed they received a sufficient sense of the student body. A minority (n = 39/95 [41%]) felt limited in their ability to learn about the institution (commonly related to their inability to tour campus), and a majority (n =74/91 [81%]) would have preferred an in-person interview. Most interviewers felt comfortable assessing applicants' verbal communication skills (n = 13/16 [81%]), and most (n = 12/17 [71%]) felt VI should be an option for future applicants. NEXT STEPS: VI, likely to be a temporary-but-universal fixture of upcoming application cycles, may benefit applicants and interviewers alike by saving resources and diversifying those involved. Next steps are developing programming that will permit applicants to virtually explore the institution and connect more with current students. Future research should evaluate potential bias in VI to ensure an equitable application process for all.

A Near-Peer Educational Model for Online, Interactive Learning in Emergency Medicine.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a large disruption in the clinical education of medical students, particularly in-person clinical activities. To address the resulting challenges faced by students interested in emergency medicine (EM), we proposed and held a peer-led, online learning course for rising fourth-year medical students. METHODS: A total of 61 medical students participated in an eight-lecture EM course. Students were evaluated through pre- and post-course assessments designed to ascertain perceived comfort with learning objectives and overall course feedback. Pre- and post-lecture assignments were also used to increase student learning. RESULTS: Mean confidence improved in every learning objective after the course. Favored participation methods were three-person call-outs, polling, and using the "chat" function. Resident participation was valued for "real-life" examples and clinical pearls. CONCLUSION: This interactive model for online EM education can be an effective format for dissemination when in-person education may not be available.

A Near-Peer Educational Model for Online, Interactive Learning in Emergency Medicine

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a large disruption in the clinical education of medical students, particularly in-person clinical activities. To address the resulting challenges faced by students interested in emergency medicine (EM), we proposed and held a peer-led, online learning course for rising fourth-year medical students. Methods: A total of 61 medical students participated in an eight-lecture EM course. Students were evaluated through pre- and post-course assessments designed to ascertain perceived comfort with learning objectives and overall course feedback. Pre- and post-lecture assignments were also used to increase student learning. Results: Mean confidence improved in every learning objective after the course. Favored participation methods were three-person call-outs, polling, and using the “chat” function. Resident participation was valued for “real-life” examples and clinical pearls. Conclusion: This interactive model for online EM education can be an effective format for dissemination when in-person education may not be available.

Convalescent plasma treatment of severe COVID-19: a propensity score-matched control study.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a new human disease with few effective treatments1. Convalescent plasma, donated by persons who have recovered from COVID-19, is the acellular component of blood that contains antibodies, including those that specifically recognize SARS-CoV-2. These antibodies, when transfused into patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, are thought to exert an antiviral effect, suppressing virus replication before patients have mounted their own humoral immune responses2,3. Virus-specific antibodies from recovered persons are often the first available therapy for an emerging infectious disease, a stopgap treatment while new antivirals and vaccines are being developed1,2. This retrospective, propensity score-matched case-control study assessed the effectiveness of convalescent plasma therapy in 39 patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19 at The Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City. Oxygen requirements on day 14 after transfusion worsened in 17.9% of plasma recipients versus 28.2% of propensity score-matched controls who were hospitalized with COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio (OR), 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.75-0.98; chi-square test P value = 0.025). Survival also improved in plasma recipients (adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.89; chi-square test P = 0.027). Convalescent plasma is potentially effective against COVID-19, but adequately powered, randomized controlled trials are needed.

Crisis Standards of Care in the USA: A Systematic Review and Implications for Equity Amidst COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) provide a framework for the fair allocation of scarce resources during emergencies. The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has disproportionately affected Black and Latinx populations in the USA. No literature exists comparing state-level CSC. It is unknown how equitably CSC would allocate resources. METHODS: The authors identified all publicly available state-level CSC through online searches and communication with state governments. Publicly available CSC were systematically reviewed for content including ethical framework and prioritization strategy. RESULTS: CSC were identified for 29 states. Ethical principles were explicitly stated in 23 (79.3%). Equity was listed as a guiding ethical principle in 15 (51.7%); 19 (65.5%) said decisions should not factor in race, ethnicity, disability, and other identity-based factors. Ten states (34.4%) allowed for consideration of societal value, which could lead to prioritization of health care workers and other essential personnel. Twenty-one (72.4%) CSC provided a specific strategy for prioritizing patients for critical care resources, e.g., ventilators. All incorporated Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores; 15 (71.4%) of these specific CSC considered comorbid conditions (e.g., cardiac disease, renal failure, malignancy) in resource allocation decisions. CONCLUSION: There is wide variability in the existence and specificity of CSC across the USA. CSC may disproportionately impact disadvantaged populations due to inequities in comorbid condition prevalence, expected lifespan, and other effects of systemic racism.