Search

PurposeTo describe the policies, processes, and programs at U.S. medical schools to support faculty caregivers before and in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodIn 2021, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and founding members of the COVID-19 Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS) Collaborative launched and supported the COVID-19 FRCS program to recognize medical schools and their efforts to strengthen policies, processes, and programs supporting biomedical faculty with family caregiving responsibilities in the context of COVID-19-related impacts. The authors conducted a qualitative conceptual content analysis of the deidentified, open-ended responses submitted by institutions in their applications to the COVID-19 FRCS program and summarized the reported strategies using recurring patterns and common approaches.ResultsFifty-four institutions applied to the COVID-19 FRCS program in 2021 and were included in this study. COVID-19-related impacts on biomedical faculty included stymied career progression and academic productivity, exacerbated career-caregiving time conflicts, adverse effects on family and personal well-being and mental health, increased financial hardships, and amplified faculty caregiver stigma. The described policies, processes, and programs to support faculty caregivers fell into 4 domains: support for dependent care, career and workplace flexibility, career development support, and institutional culture change to reduce stigma. COVID-19-related modifications spanned these domains with remote and flexible work manifesting as disruptive changes. Strategies to support women and underrepresented in medicine faculty, who bear a disproportionate burden of caregiving responsibilities, centered on career development support and institutional culture change. The projected durability of the enacted changes varied by institution and across strategies.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic presents a disruptive opportunity to translate lessons learned into positive change to better support faculty caregivers, particularly women and underrepresented in medicine faculty. This study's findings provide a framework to guide sustainable change to support equity, diversity, and vitality in the academic biomedical workforce.

Objectives: Research examining emergency department (ED) admission practices within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is limited. This study investigates facility‐level variation in risk‐standardized admission rates (RSARs) for emergency care–sensitive conditions (ECSCs) among older (≥65 years) and younger (<65 years) Veterans across VA EDs. Methods: Veterans presenting to a VA ED for an ECSC between October 1, 2016 and September 30, 2019 were identified and the 10 most common ECSCs established. ECSC‐specific RSARs were calculated using hierarchical generalized linear models, adjusting for Veteran and encounter characteristics. The interquartile range ratio (IQR ratio) and coefficient of variation were measures of dispersion for each condition and were stratified by age group. Associations with facility characteristics were also examined in condition‐specific multivariable models. Results: The overall cohort included 651,336 ED visits across 110 VA facilities for the 10 most common ECSCs—chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart failure, pneumonia, volume depletion, tachyarrhythmias, acute diabetes mellitus, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, asthma, sepsis, and myocardial infarction (MI). After adjusting for case mix, the ECSCs with the greatest variation (IQR ratio, coefficient of variation) in RSARs were asthma (1.43, 32.12), COPD (1.39, 24.64), volume depletion (1.38, 23.67), and acute diabetes mellitus (1.28, 17.52), whereas those with the least variation were MI (1.01, 0.87) and sepsis (1.02, 2.41). Condition‐specific RSARs were not qualitatively different between age subgroups. Association with facility characteristics varied across ECSCs and within condition‐specific age subgroups. Conclusions: We identified unexplained facility‐level variation in RSARs for Veterans presenting with the 10 most common ECSCs to VA EDs. The magnitude of variation did not appear to be qualitatively different between older and younger Veteran subgroups. Variation in RSARs for ECSCs may be an important target for systems‐based levers to improve value in VA emergency care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has been almost 3 years since the opioid epidemic was declared a national public health emergency under federal law. Solutions have focused on supply-reduction strategies. These approaches, however, have failed to significantly curtail opioid overdose and related death. Demand for opioid use arising from social networks and environment is an important contributing factor to the current opioid epidemic. Adoption of existing underused methods is needed to drive further progress. This Perspective proposes the social contagion model as a promising framework through which to operationalize evaluation of the influence of social networks and environment in the opioid epidemic and argues for its greater application. Comparing the current epidemic with previous opioid epidemics reiterates the utility of the social contagion model. This model acknowledges social network influence on individual behavior. It leverages tools from epidemiology, permits evaluation of interpersonal influence, facilitates consideration of disproportionate and collateral effects, and overcomes limitations of traditional models and geographic assumptions inherent to many approaches surrounding the current opioid epidemic. Analyzing the opioid epidemic within a social contagion framework will enhance evaluation methods and enable the design of interventions to reflect the actual demands of the current crisis. If the influence of social networks and environment is not considered, the devastating toll of the opioid epidemic could grow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 has strained the household finances of many Americans who are already experiencing increasing health care expenses. Concerns about the cost of care may deter patients from seeking even urgent care from the emergency department (ED). This study examines predictors of older Americans' concerns about ED visit costs and how cost concerns may have influenced their ED use in the early stages of the pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional survey study using a nationally representative sample of US adults aged 50 to 80 years (N = 2074) in June 2020. METHODS: Multivariate logistic regressions assessed the relationships of sociodemographic, insurance, and health factors with cost concerns for ED care. RESULTS: Of the respondents, 80% were concerned (45% very, 35% somewhat) about costs of an ED visit and 18% were not confident in their ability to afford an ED visit. Of the entire sample, 7% had avoided ED care because of cost concerns in the past 2 years. Of those who may have needed ED care, 22% had avoided care. Predictors of cost-related ED avoidance included being aged 50 to 54 years (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 4.57; 95% CI, 1.44-14.54), being uninsured (AOR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.35-6.52), having poor or fair mental health (AOR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.62-4.89), and having an annual household income of less than $30,000 (AOR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.19-4.46). CONCLUSIONS: During the early COVID-19 pandemic, most older US adults expressed concerns about the financial impact of ED use. Further research should examine how insurance design could alleviate the perceived financial burden of ED use and prevent cost-related care avoidance, especially for those at higher risk in future pandemic surges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]