Diversity and Inclusion in Anesthesiology.

In today's world, departments of anesthesiology and professional organizations are rightfully expected to have racial, ethnic, and gender diversity. Diversity and inclusiveness are considered important contributors to an effective and collaborative work environment by promoting excellence in patient care, education, and research. This has been re-emphasized in the racial reckoning in the summer of 2020, and the ongoing health care disparities manifested by the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Moreover, the negative consequences of a lack of diversity and inclusion in health care have been shown to impact recruitment, retention, and the economic well-being of academic departments. In the present article, we review the current state of diversity in anesthesiology departments and professional organizations in the United States. We discuss strategies and important approaches to further enhance diversity to promote an inclusive perioperative work environment.

Demystifying α-gal syndrome: identification and risk management in the perioperative setting.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: α-Gal syndrome is among a vexing perioperative consideration for anesthesiologists. Commonly referred to as 'red meat allergy', α-Gal syndrome is precipitated by a lone star tick bite resulting in the formation of immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies against the tick salivary glycoproteins and noncatarrhine mammalian tissue. RECENT FINDINGS: Up to 20% of the population in the southeastern United States may test positive for IgE antibodies to α-Gal. Increasingly, recognition of α-Gal syndrome as an immune response to red meat consumption and certain drugs, many of which may be administered within the perioperative period, has led to greater awareness of the insidious nature of its presentation - from mild urticaria and gastrointestinal symptoms to severe anaphylaxis. SUMMARY: With the increasing prevalence and identification of α-Gal syndrome, a safe and tailored perioperative process is needed to integrate a pathway that involves multidisciplinary communication, robust information sharing platform, and a structured peri-procedure management.

A 25-year retrospective analysis of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification: did we "up-code" young obese patients when obesity was not yet considered a disease?

PURPOSE: The influence of obesity on anesthetic risk remains controversial, and obesity has only recently been specifically identified as a criterion by which a patient can be given a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists-physical status (ASA-PS) score. Nevertheless, we hypothesized that clinicians had assigned obese patients a greater ASA-PS score before obesity became an "official" criterion in 2015. METHODS: Basic demographic and physical details were collected on patients receiving anesthetics in the Virginia Commonwealth University Health System between 1986 and 2010. The risk ratio (RR) of "up-coding" ASA-PS classification assignments was calculated for patients of varying body mass index (BMI). We specifically focused on the subset of patients aged 20-29 yr in whom the medical sequelae of obesity would not yet likely be manifest. RESULTS: Among a total of 194,698 patients, the percentage who were obese increased from 20% to 39% between 1986 and 2010. Obese patients of all ages were more likely than non-obese patients to be classified as ASA-PS II-IV rather than ASA-PS I. The RR and ratio of RR analyses indicated a consistent pattern of up-coding patients with greater BMI (contingency table Chi-square: P < 0.001). Most notably, relative to patients with a normal BMI, young obese patients aged 20-29 yr had an increased likelihood of up-coding in ASA-PS compared with obese patients in the older cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a consistent and temporally stable practice of up-coding obese patients despite this lack of explicit guidance. The ASA House of Delegates' recent decision to specifically mention obesity reinforces long-existing practices regarding ASA-PS coding and will likely not degrade the validity of data sets collected before the change.

The State of Employment for People With IDD: Implications for Practice, Policy, and Equity.

Meaningful progress in improving employment outcomes for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities continues to be elusive, despite 40 years of investment in research, policy, and supports. This article reviews the current state of employment for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) and describes policy, practice, and individual factors that influence employment outcomes. Research suggests the need for a holistic approach to change that addresses systems-level strategy, policy, and fiscal investment while strengthening individual experiences with employment and related day services. Recommendations address strengthening the implementation of employment policy, developing pathways to employment, and engaging individuals with IDD and, in particular, individuals with diverse social characteristics in reflecting on the quality of their experiences and supports.

Supporting Employment Consultants to Implement Supported and Customized Employment.

Implementing supported and customized employment in all their components is essential for supporting job seekers with disabilities to achieve their career goals. We asked 42 employment consultants in nine employment programs to respond daily to three quick questions about their employment support activities, for 6 months. Through monthly coaching, we helped the managers of these organizations engage their teams of employment consultants to interpret the data, reflect, set goals, and take action for quality improvement. Based on the positive results of this pilot, we recommend that employment consultants be provided with data-enabled feedback that supports decision making and helps them fully implement supported and customized employment as a necessary step toward improving job seekers' employment outcomes.