Characterizing trauma encounters among patients with language other than English preference at a level 1 trauma center's emergency department.

Objectives: Injury-related visits constitute a sizeable portion of emergency department (ED) visits in the United States. Individuals with language other than English (LOE) preference face barriers to healthcare and visits for traumatic injury may be the first point of contact with the healthcare system. Yet, the prevalence of traumatic injuries in this population is relatively unknown. Our objective was to characterize the prevalence and purpose of trauma encounters, and healthcare utilization, among a LOE cohort. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of LOE patients who presented for a trauma encounter at a level 1 trauma and emergency care center between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2021. LOE participants were identified by utilization of video-based language interpretive services. Variables evaluated included injury patterns and primary and subspeciality healthcare utilization. Quantitative analysis of categorical and continuous variables was performed. Results: A total of 429 patients were included. Most patients presented for one trauma encounter and the majority spoke Spanish. The most common causes of injury were motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) (28.5%, n = 129), ground-level falls (15.9%, n = 72), and falls from heights (14.2%, n = 64). Occupational injuries made up 27.2% of trauma encounters (n = 123) and only 12.6% (n = 54) of patients had a primary care visit. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the need for increased research and attention to all causes of injury, especially MVCs and occupational injuries, among those with LOE preference. Results reaffirm an underutilization of healthcare among this population and the opportunity for trauma encounters as points of access to care.

How to Create a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Curriculum: More Than Checking a Box.

We are beginning to accept and address the role that medicine as an institution played in legitimizing scientific racism and creating structural barriers to health equity. There is a call for greater emphasis in medical education on explaining our role in perpetuating health inequities and educating learners on how bias and racism lead to poor health outcomes for historically marginalized communities. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI; also referred to as EDI) and antiracism are key parts of patient care and medical education as they empower health professionals to be advocates for their patients, leading to better health care outcomes and more culturally and socially humble health care professionals. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education has set forth standards to include structural competency and other equity principles in the medical curriculum, but medical schools are still struggling with how to specifically do so. Here, we highlight a stepwise approach to systematically developing and implementing medical educational curriculum content with a DEI and antiracism lens. This article serves as a blueprint to prepare institution leadership, medical faculty, staff, and learners in how to effectively begin or scale up their current DEI and antiracism curricular efforts.

Acute type A aortic syndromes: outcomes are independent of aortic root/valve management.

Purpose: Clinical outcomes following various surgical intervention strategies for aortic root and valve pathology during repair of acute type A aortic syndromes were studied and compared. Methods: From 2004 to 2019, 634 patients underwent acute type A aortic repair. Patients were divided into 4 groups: Valve Resuspension (n = 456), Isolated Valve Replacement (AVR) (n = 24), Valve and Root Replacement (ROOT) (n = 97), and Valve Sparing Root Replacement (VSRR) (n = 57). The primary endpoint was midterm survival and multivariable risk factor analysis was performed. Results: The mean age was 55.4 ± 13 years, 424 (67%) were male, and overall early mortality was 12%. Early mortality was 13%, 8%, 11%, and 7% for the Valve Resuspension, AVR, ROOT, and VSRR groups respectively, p = 0.43. Five-year survival was 74%, 86%, 73%, and 84% for the Valve Resuspension, AVR, ROOT, and VSRR groups respectively, p = 0.46. There was no difference in late stroke, renal failure, heart block, and late bleeding (p > 0.05 for all). At late follow-up, AVR and ROOT patients had a higher mean gradient versus Valve Resuspension and VSRR patients, p < 0.0001. For the total cohort, risk factors for late mortality included preoperative peripheral vascular disease (hazard ratio (HR) 2.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-4.4, p = 0.009) and preoperative dialysis (HR 2.8, 95% CI 1.3-6.1, p = 0.01). Conclusion: Mid-term survival following repair of acute type A aortic dissection is not independently associated with a specific type of aortic valve intervention. Native valve preservation leads to acceptable mid-term valve hemodynamics and should be the preferred therapy in this emergent clinical setting. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12055-023-01602-8.

Reintervention after valve-sparing aortic root replacement: A comprehensive analysis of 781 David V procedures.

OBJECTIVE: Studies of reintervention after valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) are limited by sample size and failure to evaluate all types of reinterventions, including distal aorta and transcatheter interventions. In this report, reintervention after VSRR using a large patient cohort was comprehensively analyzed. METHODS: In a series involving 2 academic aortic centers, 781 consecutive patients from 2005 to 2020 undergoing David V VSRR for aortic aneurysm (91%) or dissection (9%) were included. Median age was 50 years, and 23% had a bicuspid aortic valve (AV). Median follow-up was 7.0 years. Open or transcatheter reintervention on the AV, proximal, or distal thoracic aorta was identified. Cumulative incidence was calculated, and subdistribution hazard models identified factors associated with reintervention. Time-dependent incidence of reintervention was plotted using risk-hazard functions. RESULTS: Sixty-eight reinterventions (57 open, 11 transcatheter) were performed. Reinterventions were divided by indication into degenerative AV (n = 26, including 1 transcatheter aortic valve replacement), endocarditis (n = 11), proximal aorta (n = 8), and distal aorta (n = 23, including 10 thoracic endovascular aortic repairs). Risk of reintervention for endocarditis peaked 1 to 3 years after VSRR, whereas other indications had stable, low rates of occurrence throughout the follow-up period. The cumulative incidence of reintervention was 12.5% whereas the cumulative incidence of AV reintervention was 7.0% at 10 years and was associated with residual postoperative aortic insufficiency. In-hospital mortality after reintervention was 3%. CONCLUSIONS: Reintervention rates after VSRR are relatively low in long-term follow-up and can be performed with acceptable operative risk. The majority of reinterventions are performed for indications other than AV degeneration, with the timing of reintervention varying by the specific clinical indication.

Making an Impact with E.M.P.A.C.T. Engage, Mentor Prepare, Advocate, Cultivate, and Teach: An Innovative Pilot Mentoring Program Evaluation for Students Underrepresented in Medicine.

Purpose: Medicine has yet to increase the representation of historically excluded persons in medicine to reflect the general population. The lack of support and guidance in the medical training of these individuals is a significant contributor to this disparity. The Engage, Mentor, Prepare, Advocate for, Cultivate, and Teach (EMPACT) Mentoring program was created to address this problem by providing support for learners who are historically underrepresented in medicine (URiM) as they progress through medical school. Methods: The EMPACT Pilot Program was formed and conducted during the 2019-2020 academic year. A total of 19 EMPACT mentorship groups were created, each consisting of two mentors and four medical student mentees. Additionally, four professional development workshops were held along with a final Wrap-up and Awards event. Pre and post pilot program surveys along with surveys after each workshop and focus groups were conducted with a random selection of program participants. Results: When compared to data from before and after the implementation of the EMPACT program, there were statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in EMPACT mentees reporting they agree or strongly agree they felt ready to handle their clinical rotations (28% to 65%), felt the need to have an advocate (85% to 47%), possessed insight on day-to-day activities of an attending (26% to 56%) and felt a sense of community (79% to 94%). Mentors revealed an increase in their awareness of the concepts of microaggressions and imposter phenomenon. Finally, both groups felt an increase in their support system and sense of community at the school of medicine. Conclusion: Despite COVID-19 limitations, the EMPACT program met its goals. We effectively supported URiM medical students through mentorship, networking, and community.