The prevalence of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender health education and training in emergency medicine residency programs: what do we know?

BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine, The Joint Commission, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services all have recently highlighted the need for cultural competency and provider education on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) health. Forty percent of LGBT patients cite lack of provider education as a barrier to care. Only a few hours of medical school curriculum are devoted to LGBT education, and little is known about LGBT graduate medical education. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to perform a needs assessment to determine to what degree LGBT health is taught in emergency medicine (EM) residency programs and to determine whether program demographics affect inclusion of LGBT health topics. METHODS: An anonymous survey link was sent to EM residency program directors (PDs) via the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors listserv. The 12-item descriptive survey asked the number of actual and desired hours of instruction on LGBT health in the past year. Perceived barriers to LGBT health education and program demographics were also sought. RESULTS: There were 124 responses to the survey out of a potential response from 160 programs (response rate of 78%). Twenty-six percent of the respondents reported that they have ever presented a specific LGBT lecture, and 33% have incorporated topics affecting LGBT health in the didactic curriculum. EM programs presented anywhere from 0 to 8 hours on LGBT health, averaging 45 minutes of instruction in the past year (median = 0 minutes, interquartile range [IQR] = 0 to 60 minutes), and PDs support inclusion of anywhere from 0 to 10 hours of dedicated time to LGBT health, with an average of 2.2 hours (median = 2 hours, IQR = 1 to 3.5 hours) recommended. The majority of respondents have LGBT faculty (64.2%) and residents (56.2%) in their programs. The presence of LGBT faculty and previous LGBT education were associated with a greater number of desired hours on LGBT health. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of EM residency programs have not presented curricula specific to LGBT health, although PDs desire inclusion of these topics. Further curriculum development is needed to better serve LGBT patients.

Web-based emergency department patient satisfaction surveys may introduce potential for bias.

BACKGROUND: Emergency departments (ED) have proposed utilizing a Web-based format to distribute patient satisfaction surveys, but the potential for bias in this distribution method has not been assessed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of ED patients who have access to the Internet to better understand potential bias in Web-based patient satisfaction surveys. METHODS: We distributed a 20-question survey to consenting, English-speaking adult patients presenting to the ED from December 2010 to March 2012. Patients reported demographic information and answered questions related to their access and use of the Internet. RESULTS: Seven hundred four patients participated in the study; 90% of Whites reported Internet access, vs. 82% of Hispanics (p = 0.034). Ninety-two percent of patients with at least some college education had Internet access, compared to 79% of those with a high school education level or lower (p ≤ 0.001). Of households reporting an income of > $22,000/year, 95% had Internet access, compared to 77% of those reporting a household income < $22,000/year (p ≤ 0.001). Ninety-four percent of participants < 40 years of age had Internet access, compared to 83% between the ages of 40 and 56 years, and 77% for those over 56 years of age (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A Web-based distribution of ED patient satisfaction surveys may underrepresent minorities, patients without college education, those with lower income, and patients older than 40 years. This information may provide guidance in interpreting results of Web-based patient satisfaction surveys and may suggest the need for multiple sampling methods.

Mass screening for fever in children: a comparison of 3 infrared thermal detection systems.

OBJECTIVES: Infrared thermal detection systems (ITDSs) have been used with limited success outside the United States to screen for fever during recent outbreaks of novel infectious diseases. Although ITDSs are fairly accurate in detecting fever in adults, there is little information about their utility in children. METHODS: In a pediatric emergency department, we compared temperatures of children (<18 years old) measured using 3 ITDSs (OptoTherm Thermoscreen, FLIR ThermoVision 360, and Thermofocus 0800H3) to standard, age-appropriate temperature measurements (confirmed fever defined as ≥38.0°C [oral or rectal], ≥37.0°C [axillary]). Measured temperatures were compared with parental reports of fever using descriptive, multivariate, and receiver operating characteristic analyses. RESULTS: Of 855 patients, 400 (46.8%) had parent-reported fever, and 306 (35.8%) had confirmed fever. At optimal fever thresholds, OptoTherm and FLIR had sensitivity (83.0% and 83.7%, respectively) approximately equal to parental report (83.9%) and greater than Thermofocus (76.8%), and specificity (86.3% and 85.7%) greater than parental report (70.8%) and Thermofocus (79.4%). Correlation coefficients between traditional thermometry and ITDSs were 0.78 (OptoTherm), 0.75 (FLIR), and 0.66 (Thermofocus). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with traditional thermometry, FLIR and OptoTherm were reasonably accurate in detecting fever in children and better predictors of fever than parental report. These findings suggest that ITDSs could be a useful noninvasive screening tool for fever in the pediatric age group.