Cervical Cancer and a History of Incarceration: Examining a Social Determinant of Health.

Females who are incarcerated are disproportionately burdened by cancer, particularly cervical cancer. We measured the odds of cervical cancer compared with nonscreenable cancers for females who were incarcerated before diagnosis. By comparing a cancer for which screening and vaccination are available with cancers for which neither are available, we aimed to assess the relationship of incarceration with diseases for which preventive care mitigates risk. We created a novel data set combining cancer data from a large cancer center with incarceration data from the state department of corrections. We then estimated the odds of cervical cancer relative to nonscreenable cancers for those with and without a history of incarceration. Females with a history of incarceration had greater odds of being diagnosed with cervical cancer compared with nonscreenable cancers (odds ratio = 7.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.4-11.0) relative to those who had not been incarcerated. Adjusting for race and age, the odds of cervical cancer remained significantly greater for those with a history of incarceration (adjusted odds ratio = 3.86; 95% CI: 2.3-6.3). Our findings support the need for expanded cervical cancer screening and vaccination opportunities for incarcerated females and increased access to preventive health care after release.

Experiences of in-hospital care among dementia caregivers in the context of high neighborhood-level disadvantage.

BACKGROUND: Persons living with dementia (PLWD) experience high rates of hospitalization and rehospitalization, exposing them to added risk for adverse outcomes including delirium, hastened cognitive decline, and death. Hospitalizations can also increase family caregiver strain. Despite disparities in care quality surrounding hospitalizations for PLWD, and evidence suggesting that exposure to neighborhood-level disadvantage increases these inequities, experiences with hospitalization among PLWD and family caregivers exposed to greater levels of neighborhood disadvantage are poorly understood. This study examined family caregiver perspectives and experiences of hospitalizations among PLWD in the context of high neighborhood-level disadvantage. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Stakeholders Understanding of Prevention Protection and Opportunities to Reduce HospiTalizations (SUPPORT) study, an in-depth, multisite qualitative study examining hospitalization and rehospitalization of PLWD in the context of high neighborhood disadvantage, to identify caregiver perspectives and experiences of in-hospital care. Data were analyzed using rapid identification of themes; duplicate transcript review was used to enhance rigor. RESULTS: Data from N = 54 individuals (47 individual interviews, 2 focus groups with 7 individuals) were analyzed. Sixty-three percent of participants identified as Black/African American, 35% as non-Hispanic White, and 2% declined to report. Caregivers' experiences were largely characterized by PLWD receiving suboptimal care that caregivers viewed as influenced by system pressures and inadequate workforce competencies, leading to communication breakdowns and strain. Caregivers described poor collaboration between clinicians and caregivers with regard to in-hospital care delivery, including transitional care. Caregivers also highlighted the lack of person-focused care and the exclusion of the PLWD from care. CONCLUSIONS: Caregiver perspectives highlight opportunities for improving hospital care for PLWD in the context of neighborhood disadvantage and recognition of broader issues in care structure that limit their capacity to be actively involved in care. Further work should examine and develop strategies to improve caregiver integration during hospitalizations across diverse contexts.

COVID-19-Related Publications by Hospitalists in the United States.

Objective To determine the degree to which hospitalists published academic manuscripts related to COVID-19 during the first year of the pandemic. Patients and methods The study was a cross-sectional analysis of the author's specialty, defined by byline or professional online biography, from articles related to COVID-19 published between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021. It included the top four internal medicine journals by impact factor: New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine. Participants were all United States (US)-based physician authors contributing to COVID-19 publications. Our primary outcome was the percentage of US-based physician authors of COVID-19 articles who were hospitalists. Subgroup analyses characterized author specialty by authorship position (first, middle, last) and article type (research vs. non-research). Results Between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021, the top four US-based medical journals published 870 articles related to COVID-19 of which 712 articles with 1940 US-based physician authors were included. Hospitalists accounted for 4.2% (82) of authorship positions including 4.7% (49/1038) of authorship positions in research articles and 3.7% (33/902) of authorship positions in non-research articles. First, middle, and last authorship positions were held by hospitalists at 3.7% (18/485), 4.4% (45/1034), and 4.5% (19/421) of the time, respectively. Conclusions Despite caring for a large number of patients with COVID-19, hospitalists were rarely involved in disseminating COVID-19 knowledge. Limited authorship by hospitalists could constrain the dissemination of inpatient medicine knowledge, impact patient outcomes, and affect the academic promotion of early-career hospitalists.

Prevalence and Causes of Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Patients Under Investigation for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required clinicians to care for a disease with evolving characteristics while also adhering to care changes (e.g., physical distancing practices) that might lead to diagnostic errors (DEs). OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of DEs and their causes among patients hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Eight medical centers affiliated with the Hospital Medicine ReEngineering Network (HOMERuN). TARGET POPULATION: Adults hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 infection between February and July 2020. MEASUREMENTS: We randomly selected up to 8 cases per site per month for review, with each case reviewed by two clinicians to determine whether a DE (defined as a missed or delayed diagnosis) occurred, and whether any diagnostic process faults took place. We used bivariable statistics to compare patients with and without DE and multivariable models to determine which process faults or patient factors were associated with DEs. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-seven patient charts underwent review, of which 36 (14%) had a diagnostic error. Patients with and without DE were statistically similar in terms of socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, risk factors for COVID-19, and COVID-19 test turnaround time and eventual positivity. Most common diagnostic process faults contributing to DE were problems with clinical assessment, testing choices, history taking, and physical examination (all p < 0.01). Diagnostic process faults associated with policies and procedures related to COVID-19 were not associated with DE risk. Fourteen patients (35.9% of patients with errors and 5.4% overall) suffered harm or death due to diagnostic error. LIMITATIONS: Results are limited by available documentation and do not capture communication between providers and patients. CONCLUSION: Among PUI patients, DEs were common and not associated with pandemic-related care changes, suggesting the importance of more general diagnostic process gaps in error propagation.