Search

Background To evaluate Coronavirus Disease 2019-(COVID19) patients treated within our academic medical system to determine if history of malignancy, both in general and specifically in genitourinary oncology patients, is associated with adverse clinical outcomes, including acute kidney injury (AKI) and mortality. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study among patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in a multi-hospital, academic medical institution in New York City. Outcomes included mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and AKI among hospitalized patients. We also evaluated risk of hospitalization among all patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Multilevel logistic regression models were used for analysis. Results We identified 6,893 patients who met inclusion criteria, of which 4,018 were hospitalized. Among hospitalized patients 374 (9%) had a history of cancer, 281 (7%) experienced AKI, and 1,045 (26%) died. In adjusted analyses, patients with a history of cancer had 1.33 (95% CI = 1.05, 1.69) times the odds of death compared to those without cancer and this appeared to be driven by lung cancer (odds ratio (OR) = 2.44, 95% CI= 1.05, 4.39). Patients with a history of genitourinary cancer were not at higher risk of mortality compared to those without cancer (OR=0.99, 95% CI= 0.61, 1.62). History of cancer was not associated with ICU admission or AKI in overall and subgroup analyses. Conclusions Patients with a history of cancer who are hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection are not at greater risk for AKI, though they are at higher risk for mortality as compared to patients without a history of cancer. The increased risk in mortality appears driven by patients with pulmonary neoplasms. Patients with a history of genitourinary malignancies do not appear to be at higher risk for AKI or for mortality compared to the general population.

AIM The Actionable Bladder Symptom and Screening Tool (ABSST) is used to identify multiple sclerosis (MS) patients in possible need of evaluation for urinary symptoms. The primary objective of this study was to identify barriers experienced by MS patients in seeking evaluation for urinary symptoms. We also assessed the utility of ABSST tool in identifying patients that will follow up with urologic evaluation. METHODS This was a prospective observational study where 100 patients with MS were enrolled from an MS center. Patients completed demographic information, questions to assess barriers to care, a short form of the ABSST, and incontinence questionnaires. An ABSST score >3 met criteria for referral and evaluation. One year after enrollment, follow up calls assessed whether patients had seen a urinary specialist. RESULTS The most common barriers to seeking care included “Doctor never referred” (16%) and “Doctor never asked” (13%). Thirty-eight percent (n = 8/21) of men stated “Doctor never referred” compared to 10% (n = 8/79) of women (P = 0.002). Twenty-seven patients had an ABSST Score ≥3 and were more interested in seeing a specialist compared to those scoring

Information regarding patient preferences is important to develop more diversity in healthcare providers. To our knowledge, no information exists regarding how patients choose their orthopaedic surgeon. The purpose of this study is to determine which demographic factors, if any, affect patient preferences when choosing an orthopaedic surgeon.Five hundred new patients presenting to a large, urban, academic orthopaedic clinic from May 2011 to May 2013 were prospectively asked to participate in this study. Patients were asked to complete a survey designed with the help of the Division of Population Health that focused on demographic, professional and physical attributes of theoretical surgeons. Specifically, patient preference of surgeon age, gender, race, religion, importance of education prestige, training program prestige and number of medical publications were evaluated. Patients were then stratified by age, gender, race, religion, educational level and income level to assess whether their own demographics were related to their preferences. The data was then analyzed to determine whether correlations existed between patient preferences and their own demographics.Five hundred patients agreed to participate in the study. There were 195 (39.0%) males and 281 (56.2%) females with an average age of 40.8 years (SD=20.5), 24 patients (4.8%) did not respond to the question. Two hundred and twelve (42.4%) patients were Caucasian, 116 (23.2%) were Hispanic, 53 (10.6%) were African American, 44 (8.8%) were Asian, 32 (6.4%) were listed as other and 43 (8.6%) did not answer. 78.0% of patients had no preference for their surgeon's gender, but for those who did, both men and woman preferred male surgeons (weak positive correlation, not statistically significant, r=0.096, p=0.373). The majority of patients (84.8%) had no preference for the race of their surgeon, but those that had a preference tended to prefer surgeons of their own ethnicity (p0.001). With increasing patient education level, medical school, residency and fellowship training prestige had more importance as a selection criterion. Increasing patient education level also demonstrated a corresponding importance given to physician education and training as categorized by the perception of residency training program prestige (p=0.04). A majority of patients (84.0%) had no preference for their surgeon's religion, but for those who did there was a strong correlation (r=0.65), between the patients' own religion and that of the physician (p0.001). There was universal agreement in perception that neither physician age nor years in practice made any difference as selection criteria when choosing an orthopaedic surgeon (p0.05). Finally patient income level had no effect on specific criteria when choosing a surgeon.The vast majority of patients surveyed had no preference in age, gender, race, or religion of their potential surgeon. However, patients who had preferences in these categories tended to choose surgeons of the same age, race and religion. These findings neither support or refute the need for diverse health care providers in the field of orthopaedics.