Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An Online Survey.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding care access and outcomes in Black/Indigenous/People of Color/Hispanic (BIPOC/H) individuals is limited. This study evaluated care barriers, disease status, and outcomes among a diverse population of White/non-Hispanic (W/NH) and BIPOC/H inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients at a large U.S. health system. METHODS: An anonymous online survey was administered to adult IBD patients at Ochsner Health treated between Aug 2019 and Dec 2021. Collected data included symptoms, the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems and Barriers to Care surveys, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) via the Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire, the Medication Adherence Rating Scale-4, and the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire. Medical record data examined healthcare resource utilization. Analyses compared W/NH and BIPOC/H via chi-square and t tests. RESULTS: Compared with their W/NH counterparts, BIPOC/H patients reported more difficulties accessing IBD specialists (26% vs 11%; P = .03), poor symptom control (35% vs 18%; P = .02), lower mean HRQOL (41 ± 14 vs 49 ± 13; P < .001), more negative impact on employment (50% vs 33%; P = .029), worse financial stability (53% vs 32%; P = .006), and more problems finding social/emotional support for IBD (64% vs 37%; P < .001). BIPOC/H patients utilized emergency department services more often (42% vs 22%; P = .004), reported higher concern scores related to IBD medication (17.1 vs 14.9; P = .001), and worried more about medication harm (19.5% vs 17.7%; P = .002). The survey response rate was 14%. CONCLUSIONS: BIPOC/H patients with IBD had worse clinical disease, lower HRQOL scores, had more medication concerns, had less access to specialists, had less social and emotional support, and used emergency department services more often than W/NH patients.

This study examined care access and outcomes in a diverse population of inflammatory bowel disease patients, comparing White/non-Hispanic and Black/Indigenous/People of Color/Hispanic individuals. The analysis revealed that Black/Indigenous/People of Color/Hispanic patients reported greater difficulties accessing inflammatory bowel disease specialists, poorer symptom control, and lower quality of life, and faced challenges in employment, financial stability, and finding social/emotional support. Additionally, they utilized emergency department services more frequently, expressed higher medication concerns, and had increased worries about medication harm.

Benefits of a Multimodal Regimen for Postsurgical Pain Management in Colorectal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain management is a major concern and a significant component of postoperative care pathways for surgery patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective medical record review of 233 consecutive patients undergoing major colorectal surgery from October 2011 to January 2013 at an academic medical center. All patients were managed with similar enhanced recovery pathways; 66 patients received multimodal postsurgical pain management that included liposomal bupivacaine intraoperatively, and 167 patients received conventional pain management with intravenous opioids. Comparisons were made using t test and chi-square analysis with StatView (SAS Institute Inc.). RESULTS: Patients receiving multimodal pain management with liposomal bupivacaine injected in the surgical site at the end of major colorectal procedures had lower postoperative pain scores and used significantly less opioids at 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, and 72 hours (P=0.03). Patients in the multimodal group also had a significantly decreased risk of opioid-related adverse events, with decreased use of antipruritic medications and antiemetic medications postoperatively. A significant decrease in length of postoperative hospital stay was seen in the multimodal group (7.2 vs 9.0 days, P=0.04). CONCLUSION: The use of multimodal pain management including liposomal bupivacaine during major colorectal surgeries improved postoperative outcomes, decreased lengths of stay, and increased bed availability.

An evaluation of the use of topical tranexamic acid in total knee arthroplasty.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of topical tranexamic acid in primary TKA from a clinical and economic standpoint. We retrospectively reviewed 683 primary total knee arthroplasties performed at a single institution over a 2-year period. We compared 373 cases performed in 2010 without tranexamic acid to 310 cases performed in 2011 with tranexamic acid. Demographic data, hemoglobin levels, transfusion rates, hospital length of stay, cost, and perioperative complications during the first 3 months were collected. Statistical analysis was performed using two sample t-tests and Fisher's exact tests. There was no difference in age, sex, height, or pre-operative hemoglobin between the two groups. The tranexamic acid group had significantly higher post-operative hemoglobin (P<0.0001), lower transfusion rate (P<0.0001), decreased length of stay (P<0.0001), decreased blood bank costs (P<0.0001), increased pharmacy cost (P<0.0001), and decreased total direct cost to the hospital (P<0.0001). The average savings was approximately $1500 per patient. There were no differences in thromboembolic events or infection. The use topical tranexamic acid in primary TKA is safe, effective, and results in significant cost savings.

Does anesthesiology residency training result in decreasing intraoperative drug cost from a resident's first to second month's experience in adult cardiac anesthesiology?

BACKGROUND: All physicians bear the responsibility of minimizing cost while providing care that meets or exceeds national quality benchmarks. Intraoperative anesthetic drug costs constitute a small but significant fraction of the total cost in the perioperative period. Previous studies have revealed that anesthesiologists are generally unaware of drug costs. In order to determine if experience and education improve anesthetic drug cost containment, we compared the total anesthetic drug cost per case as residents progressed through their rotations in cardiac anesthesia. METHODS: We considered the total anesthetic drug cost for 202 adult cardiac cases, including coronary artery bypass grafting, mitral valve repair/replacement, and aortic valve repair/replacement. 77 of the cases analyzed were done by residents in their first month of cardiac anesthesia, and 125 were done by residents in their second month of cardiac anesthesia. In the interval between these rotations, residents participate in didactics and other educational activities including a practice management rotation in the CA-3 year where they are exposed to financial topics in healthcare. RESULTS: The average total drug cost per case for residents in their first month was $193.50; SD= $82.00. The average total cost per case for residents in their second month was $223.30; SD=$96.10. With multivariate analysis considering case type, length of procedure and patient age, the resident training level did not impact the cost in a significant way (p=0.062). CONCLUSIONS: In the multivariate analysis considering case type, length of procedure and patient age, more experienced residents did not have a significantly different total drug cost per case. This finding suggests that didactic educational efforts and implicit modeling over time did not reduce drug costs in the operating room during adult cardiac surgery.