Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Hospital Readmissions: Patient Characteristics and Socioeconomic Factors Associated With Readmissions in an Urban Safety-Net Hospital System
BACKGROUND:It is not yet known whether socioeconomic factors (ie, social determinants of health) are associated with readmission following hospitalization for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 6191 adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in a large New York City safety-net hospital system between March 1 and June 1, 2020. Associations between 30-day readmission and selected demographic characteristics, socioeconomic factors, prior health care utilization, and relevant features of the index hospitalization were analyzed using a multivariable generalized estimating equation model. RESULTS:The readmission rate was 7.3%, with a median of 7 days between discharge and readmission. The following were risk factors for readmission: age 65 and older [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13-1.55], history of homelessness, (aOR: 2.03 95% CI: 1.49-2.77), baseline coronary artery disease (aOR: 1.68; 95% CI: 1.34-2.10), congestive heart failure (aOR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.20-1.49), cancer (aOR: 1.68; 95% CI: 1.26-2.24), chronic kidney disease (aOR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.46-2.07). Patients' sex, race/ethnicity, insurance, and presence of obesity were not associated with increased odds of readmission. A longer length of stay (aOR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.97-1.00) and use of noninvasive supplemental oxygen (aOR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.56-0.83) was associated with lower odds of readmission. Upon readmission, 18.4% of patients required intensive care, and 13.7% expired. CONCLUSION:We have found some factors associated with increased odds of readmission among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Awareness of these risk factors, including patients' social determinants of health, may ultimately help to reduce readmission rates.
Gendered Expectations: Strategies for Navigating Structural Challenges in Support of Transgender and Non-Binary Trainees in Academic Medicine
Members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community experience marginalization, bias, and discrimination, including in the world of academic medicine. People who are transgender and gender non-binary (TGNB) experience further marginalization compared to individuals who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer. According to a recent survey, more than half of medical students who are TGNB chose not to disclose their gender identities during training due to fears of discrimination, feeling a lack of support, and concerns about future career options. Academic medicine has historically pathologized TGNB individuals, perpetuating discrimination structurally and reinforcing discriminatory behaviors in peers and faculty. In this Perspective, the authors provide a comprehensive overview of the challenges that administrators and educators face in creating a learning environment that is inclusive of TGNB trainees. They outline opportunities for change and provide strategies to address administrative and educational challenges, including those related to institutional climate, policies, data collection, physical spaces, health care, the curriculum, mentoring, and the evaluation of TGNB trainees. Finally, the authors issue a call to action for medical educators and administrators to create environments in which trainees who are TGNB can fulfill their primary mission: to learn the practice of medicine.
MANAGING OVERNIGHT EVENTS IN THE ICU: JUST-IN-TIME SIMULATION TRAINING FOR RESIDENTS ON CALL [Meeting Abstract]
Sexual and Gender Minority Health Curricula and Institutional Support Services at U.S. Schools of Public Health
Limited research has examined the ways in which public health training programs equip students to address health disparities affecting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community and other sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations. This study outlines the availability of public health curricula on SGM health topics, and the prevalence of LGBT and SGM-inclusive institutional support services across CEPH-accredited U.S. schools of public health. Content analysis of all course offerings related to gender and sexuality revealed a limited focus on sexual and gender minority health: just 4.7% of courses contained keywords indicating that LGBT or SGM health topics were covered. Similar analysis of institutional support services available at U.S. schools of public health found that only 25% of schools had LGBT student organizations, and just 19% had an office of diversity that specifically advertised LGBT or SGM-inclusive programming or services on the institution's Web site. Finally, only two of 52 schools offered an educational certificate centered on LGBT health. These findings illustrate a significant need for enhanced curricular content and institutional support services that equip public health students to address SGM health disparities. Improvement in this area may encourage future health care professionals to work to reduce these disparities, to improve SGM persons' experiences in health care settings, and to generate further research in this area.