Understanding the Roles, Responsibilities, and Factors for Success of Health Equity Officers in Health Care Settings: A Qualitative Study.

CONTEXT: Recent national guidelines aimed at addressing equity in health care settings have contributed to an increase in equity officer positions, yet little is known about their roles, responsibilities, or strategies for engaging in health equity work. OBJECTIVE: To understand the roles and responsibilities of equity officers, as well as facilitators and barriers to their success. DESIGN: In-depth semi-structured interviews with selected respondents from the Equity Officer National Study. SETTING: Hospitals and health care systems across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-six equity officers who had responded to the Equity Officer National Study survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The interview guide explored strategies, facilitators, and barriers for engaging in health equity work in hospitals/health systems and communities. RESULTS: The job roles described by participants fell into 4 categories: community benefits/relations, population/community health, workforce, and health equity. Equity officers described key areas to support success at the individual equity officer level: knowledge and expertise, professional skills, and interpersonal skills; at the hospital level: leadership, workforce, infrastructure and resources, and policies and processes; at the community level: leadership and partnerships; and at the system level: requirements and regulations, investment and resources, and sociocultural and political characteristics of the community. These key areas have been organized to create a Framework for Equity Officer Success. CONCLUSIONS: The Framework for Equity Officer Success should be incorporated into hospital board, community stakeholder, and policymaker discussions about how to support health equity work in hospitals and health care systems.

Clinical Outcomes Following Operative and Nonoperative Management of Odontoid Fractures Among Elderly Individuals with Dementia.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of odontoid fractures among the elderly population has been increasing in recent years. Elderly individuals with dementia may be at increased risk for inferior outcomes following such fractures. Although surgical intervention has been maintained to optimize survival and recovery, it is unclear if this benefit extends to patients with dementia. We hypothesized that patients with dementia who were treated operatively for odontoid fractures would experience improved survival and lower rates of hospice admission but higher rates of delirium and of intensive interventions. METHODS: We used Medicare claims data (2017 to 2018) to identify community-dwelling individuals with dementia who sustained type-II odontoid fractures. We considered treatment strategy (operative or nonoperative) as the primary predictor and survival as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes consisted of post-treatment delirium, hospice admission, post-treatment intensive intervention, and post-discharge admission to a nursing home or a skilled nursing facility. In all models, we controlled for age, biological sex, race, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, Frailty Index, admission source, treating hospital, and dual eligibility. Adjusted analyses for survival were conducted using Cox proportional hazards regression. Adjusted analyses for secondary outcomes were performed using generalized estimating equations. To address confounding by indication, we performed confirmatory analyses using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: In this study, we included 1,030 patients. The median age of the cohort was 86.5 years (interquartile range, 80.9 to 90.8 years), 60.7% of the patients were female, and 90% of the patients were White. A surgical procedure was performed in 19.8% of the cohort. Following an adjusted analysis, patients treated surgically had a 28% lower hazard of mortality (hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.53 to 0.98]), but higher odds of delirium (odds ratio, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.10 to 2.44]). These findings were preserved in the inverse probability weighted analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We found that, among individuals with dementia who sustain a type-II odontoid fracture, surgical intervention may confer a survival benefit. A surgical procedure may be an appropriate treatment strategy for individuals with dementia whose life-care goals include life prolongation and maximizing quality of life in the short term following an injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Hip Fracture Treatment and Outcomes Among Community-Dwelling People Living With Dementia.

Importance: The decision for surgical vs nonsurgical treatment for hip fracture can be complicated among community-dwelling people living with dementia. Objective: To compare outcomes of community-dwelling people living with dementia treated surgically and nonsurgically for hip fracture. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study undertook a population-based analysis of national Medicare fee-for-service data. Participants included community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries with dementia and an inpatient claim for hip fracture from January 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018. Analyses were conducted from November 10, 2022, to October 17, 2023. Exposure: Surgical vs nonsurgical treatment for hip fracture. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mortality within 30, 90, and 180 days. Secondary outcomes consisted of selected post-acute care services. Results: Of 56 209 patients identified with hip fracture (73.0% women; mean [SD] age, 86.4 [7.0] years), 33 142 (59.0%) were treated surgically and 23 067 (41.0%) were treated nonsurgically. Among patients treated surgically, 73.3% had a fracture of the femoral head and neck and 40.2% had moderate to severe dementia (MSD). Among patients with MSD and femoral head and neck fracture, 180-day mortality was 31.8% (surgical treatment) vs 45.7% (nonsurgical treatment). For patients with MSD treated surgically vs nonsurgically, the unadjusted odds ratio (OR) of 180-day mortality was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.49-0.62; P < .001) and the adjusted OR was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.53-0.66; P < .001). Among patients with mild dementia and femoral head and neck fracture, 180-day mortality was 26.5% (surgical treatment) vs 34.9% (nonsurgical treatment). For patients with mild dementia who were treated surgically vs nonsurgically for femoral head and neck fracture, the unadjusted OR of 180-day mortality was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.60-0.76; P < .001) and the adjusted OR was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.63-0.79; P < .001). For patients with femoral head and neck fracture, there was no difference in admission to a nursing home within 180 days when treated surgically vs nonsurgically. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of community-dwelling patients with dementia and fracture of the femoral head and neck, patients with MSD and mild dementia treated surgically experienced lower odds of death compared with patients treated nonsurgically. Although avoiding nursing home admission is important to persons living with dementia, being treated surgically for hip fracture did not necessarily confer a benefit in that regard. These data can help inform discussions around values and goals with patients and caregivers when determining the optimal treatment approach.

Evaluating the Usability of an mHealth App for Empowering Cancer Survivors With Disabilities: Heuristic Evaluation and Usability Testing.

BACKGROUND: More than 18 million cancer survivors are living in the United States. The effects of cancer and its treatments can have cognitive, psychological, physical, and social consequences that many survivors find incredibly disabling. Posttreatment support is often unavailable or underused, especially for survivors living with disabilities. This leaves them to deal with new obstacles and struggles on their own, oftentimes feeling lost during this transition. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions have been shown to effectively aid cancer survivors in dealing with many of the aftereffects of cancer and its treatments; these interventions hold immense potential for survivors living with disabilities. We developed a prototype for WeCanManage, an mHealth-delivered self-management intervention to empower cancer survivors living with disabilities through problem-solving, mindfulness, and self-advocacy training. OBJECTIVE: Our study conducted a heuristic evaluation of the WeCanManage high-fidelity prototype and assessed its usability among cancer survivors with known disabilities. METHODS: We evaluated the prototype using Nielsen's 10 principles of heuristic evaluation with 22 human-computer interaction university students. On the basis of the heuristic evaluation findings, we modified the prototype and conducted usability testing on 10 cancer survivors with a variety of known disabilities, examining effectiveness, efficiency, usability, and satisfaction, including a completion of the modified System Usability Scale (SUS). RESULTS: The findings from the heuristic evaluation were mostly favorable, highlighting the need for a help guide, addressing accessibility concerns, and enhancing the navigation experience. After usability testing, the average SUS score was 81, indicating a good-excellent design. The participants in the usability testing sample expressed positive reactions toward the app's design, educational content and videos, and the available means of connecting with others. They identified areas for improvement, such as improving accessibility, simplifying navigation within the community forums, and providing a more convenient method to access the help guide. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, usability testing showed positive results for the design of WeCanManage. The course content and features helped participants feel heard, understood, and less alone.