Incorporating Health Policy and Advocacy Curricula Into Undergraduate Medical Education in the United States.

Physicians serve as crucial advocates for their patients. Undergraduate medical education (UME) must move beyond the biomedical model, built upon the perception that health is defined purely in the absence of illness, to also incorporate population health through health policy, advocacy, and community engagement to account for structural and social determinants of health. Currently, the US guidelines for UME lack structured training in health policy or advocacy, leaving trainees ill-equipped to assume their role as physician-advocates or to engage with communities. There is an undeniable need to educate future physicians on legislative advocacy toward improving the social determinants of health through the creation of evidence-based health policy, in addition to training in effective techniques to engage in partnership with the communities in which physicians serve. The authors of this article also present curricular case studies around two programs at their institution that could be used to implement similar programs at other US medical schools.

Prevalence of Behavioral Flags in the Electronic Health Record Among Black and White Patients Visiting the Emergency Department.

Importance: Behavioral flags in the electronic health record (EHR) are designed to alert clinicians of potentially unsafe or aggressive patients. These flags may introduce bias, and understanding how they are used is important to ensure equitable care. Objective: To investigate the incidence of behavioral flags and assess whether there were differences between Black and White patients and whether the flags were associated with differences in emergency department (ED) clinical care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective cohort study of EHR data of adult patients (aged ≥18 years) from 3 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, EDs within a single health system between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. Secondary analyses excluded patients with sickle cell disease and high ED care utilization. Data were analyzed from February 1 to April 4, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of interest was the presence of an EHR behavioral flag. Secondary measures included variation of flags across sex, race, age, insurance status, triage status, ED clinical care metrics (eg, laboratory, medication, and radiology orders), ED disposition (discharge, admission, or observation), and length of key intervals during ED care. Results: Participating EDs had 195 601 eligible patients (110 890 [56.7%] female patients; 113 638 Black patients [58.1%]; 81 963 White patients [41.9%]; median [IQR] age, 42 [28-60] years), with 426 858 ED visits. Among these, 683 patients (0.3%) had a behavioral flag notification in the EHR (3.5 flags per 1000 patients), and it was present for 6851 ED visits (16 flagged visits per 1000 visits). Patient differences between those with a flag and those without included male sex (56.1% vs 43.3%), Black race (71.2% vs 56.7%), and insurance status, particularly Medicaid insurance (74.5% vs 36.3%). Flag use varied across sites. Black patients received flags at a rate of 4.0 per 1000 patients, and White patients received flags at a rate of 2.4 per 1000 patients (P < .001). Among patients with a flag, Black patients, compared with White patients, had longer waiting times to be placed in a room (median [IQR] time, 28.0 [10.5-89.4] minutes vs 18.2 [7.2-75.1] minutes; P < .001), longer waiting times to see a clinician (median [IQR] time, 42.1 [18.8-105.5] minutes vs 33.3 [15.3-84.5] minutes; P < .001), and shorter lengths of stay (median [IQR] time, 274 [135-471] minutes vs 305 [154-491] minutes; P = .01). Black patients with a flag underwent fewer laboratory (eg, 2449 Black patients with 0 orders [43.4%] vs 441 White patients with 0 orders [36.7%]; P < .001) and imaging (eg, 3541 Black patients with no imaging [62.7%] vs 675 White patients with no imaging [56.2%]; P < .001) tests compared with White patients with a flag. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found significant differences in ED clinical care metrics, including that flagged patients had longer wait times and were less likely to undergo laboratory testing and imaging, which was amplified in Black patients.

A comparison of telemedicine and in-person neurology visits: what are the factors that patients consider when selecting future visit type?

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that patients consider when choosing between future in-person, video, or telephone visits. BACKGROUND: Telemedicine has been rapidly integrated into ambulatory neurology in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Ambulatory neurology patients at a single center were contacted via telephone to complete: (1) a survey quantifying likelihood of scheduling a future telemedicine visit, and (2) a semi-structured qualitative interview following their visit in March 2021. Data were processed using the principles of thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of 2493 visits, 39% assented to post-visit feedback; 74% were in-person visits and 13% video and telephone. Patients with in-person visits were less likely than those with video and telephone visits to "definitely" consider a future telemedicine visit (36 vs. 59 and 62%, respectively; p < 0.001). Patients considered five key factors when scheduling future visits: "Pros of Visit Type," "Barriers to Telemedicine," "Situational Context," "Inherent Beliefs," and "Extrinsic Variables." Patients with telemedicine visits considered convenience as a pro, while those with in-person visits cited improved quality of care. Accessibility and user familiarity were considered barriers to telemedicine by patients with in-person and telephone visits, whereas system limitations were prevalent among patients with video visits. Patients agreed that stable conditions can be monitored via telemedicine, whereas physical examination warrants an in-person visit. Telemedicine was inherently considered equivalent to in-person care by patients with telephone visits. Awareness of telemedicine must be improved for patients with in-person visits. CONCLUSION: Across visit types, patients agree that telemedicine is convenient and effective in many circumstances. Future care delivery models should incorporate the patient perspective to implement hybrid models where telemedicine is an adjunct to in-person visits in ambulatory neurology.