Do Hospitals Achieving "Leader in LGBTQ Healthcare Equality" Maintain Higher Patient Scores Compared To Nonleaders?

ABSTRACT: The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) population deals with complex medical and behavioral issues coupled with barriers in accessing both healthcare and health insurance leading to poorer health outcomes as compared with the general population. Because this community is often overlooked in efforts to improve minority health disparities, in 2007, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation introduced the Healthcare Equality Index (HEI) for evaluating healthcare facilities' policies and practices related to the equity and inclusion of their LGBTQ patients, visitors, and employees. This study's aim was to determine whether the LGBTQ Healthcare Equality Leader institution designation advantage found by DiLeo et al (2020) has a continuing positive effect on Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) performance. We found that patient scores for both Overall Rating and Willingness to Recommend were higher with noted improvement for HEI Leader institutions as compared with non-HEI Leader institutions over this study's 3-year period. Based on the findings of this study, it can be implied that hospitals do receive a return on their investment for achieving or maintaining the HEI Leader designation and this investment benefits all populations served by the organization inferred by their maintained higher patient experience scores.

Biodegradable stents for the treatment of refractory or recurrent benign esophageal stenosis.

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal stents are used for the treatment of refractory and recurrent dyphagias. In 2007, esophageal biodegradable stents (EBS) were authorised as an alternative to existing metal and plastic stents in Europe. The advantages claimed for EBS are fewer complications concerning tissue ingrowth, stent migration and stent removal. AREAS COVERED: We performed a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EBS compared to fully-covered self-expanding metal stents, self-expanding plastic stents, and esophageal dilation for the treatment of refractory or recurrent benign esophageal stenosis. Three comparative studies (one randomized controlled trial and two cohort studies) were assessed. The studies used different inclusion criteria, had a very small (sample) size and the quality of the evidence was very low. Expert commentary: The current evidence is insufficient to determine the relative efficacy or safety of esophageal biodegradable stents. The results of this systematic review should be updated once new evidence is available.