RESUMEN
This survey study describes efforts to eliminate harmful race-based clinical algorithms among state or territorial medical associations and specialty societies in the US.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Social determinants of health (SDoH) impact patients' health outcomes, yet screening methods in emergency departments (ED) are not consistent or standardized. The SDoH-related health disparities may have widened during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, especially among patients who primarily receive their medical care in EDs. We sought to identify SDoH among ED urgent care patients during the COVID-19 pandemic at an urban safety-net hospital, assess the impact of the pandemic on their SDoH, study the feasibility of SDoH screening and resource referrals, and identify preferred methods of resource referrals and barriers to accessing resources. METHODS: Research assistants screened ED urgent care patients using a validated SDoH screener, inquiring about the impact of COVID-19 on their SDoH. A printed resource guide was provided. Two weeks later, a follow-up telephone survey assessed for barriers to resource connection and patients' preferred methods for resource referrals. This study was deemed exempt by our institutional review board. RESULTS: Of the 418 patients presented with a screener, 414 (99.0%) patients completed the screening. Of those screened, 296 (71.5%) reported at least one adverse SDoH, most commonly education (38.7%), food insecurity (35.3%), and employment (31.0%). Housing insecurity was reported by 21.0%. Over half of patients (57.0%) endorsed COVID-19 affecting their SDoH. During follow-up, 156 of 234 (67%) attempted calls were successful and 36/156 (23.1%) reported attempting to connect with a resource, with most attempts made for stable housing (11.0%) and food (7.7%). Reasons for not contacting the provided resources included lack of time (37.8%) and forgetting to do so (26.3%). Patients preferred resource guides to be printed (34.0%) and sent via text message to their mobile devices (25.6%). CONCLUSION: Many urgent care patients of this urban ED reported at least one adverse SDoH, the majority of which were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This finding further emphasizes the need to allocate more resources to standardize and expand SDoH screening in EDs. Additionally, hospitals should increase availability of printed or electronic SDoH resource guides, resource navigators, and interpreters both during and after ED visits.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Determinantes Sociales de la Salud , Humanos , Pandemias , COVID-19/epidemiología , Atención Ambulatoria , Servicio de Urgencia en HospitalRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Clinical algorithms that incorporate race as a modifying factor to guide clinical decision-making have recently been criticized for propagating racial bias in medicine. Equations used to calculate lung or kidney function are examples of clinical algorithms that have different diagnostic parameters depending on an individual's race. While these clinical measures have multiple implications for clinical care, patients' awareness of and their perspectives on the application of such algorithms are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine patients' perspectives on race and the use of race-based algorithms in clinical decision-making. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three adult patients recruited at a safety-net hospital in Boston, MA. APPROACH: Interviews were analyzed using thematic content analysis and modified grounded theory. KEY RESULTS: Among the 23 study participants, 11 were women and 15 self-identified as Black or African American. Three categories of themes emerged: The first theme described definitions and the individual meanings participants ascribed to the term race. The second theme described perspectives on the role and consideration of race in clinical decision-making. Most study participants were unaware that race has been used as a modifying factor in clinical equations and rejected the incorporation of race in these equations. The third theme related to exposure to and experience of racism in healthcare settings. Experiences described by non-White participants ranged from microaggressions to overt acts of racism, including perceived racist encounters with healthcare providers. In addition, patients alluded to a deep mistrust in the healthcare system as a major barrier to equitable care. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that most patients are unaware of how race has been used to make risk assessments and guide clinical care. Further research on patients' perspectives is needed to inform the development of anti-racist policies and regulatory agendas as we move forward to combat systemic racism in medicine.
Asunto(s)
Algoritmos , Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Disparidades en Atención de Salud , Racismo , Medición de Riesgo , Adulto , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Negro o Afroamericano , Investigación Cualitativa , Factores Raciales , Confianza , ConcienciaciónRESUMEN
All clinicians should provide high-quality, safe, and equitable care to every patient and community. Yet, in practice, health care delivery systems are designed and organized to exacerbate inequity in access and outcomes, and clinicians are incentivized to deliver unequal and inequitable care in deeply segregated academic health centers that are structured to reify white supremacy. This article investigates the nature and scope of health professions educators' obligations to acknowledge harms of segregation in health care as widespread, unjust, iatrogenic, and preventable.
Asunto(s)
Atención a la Salud , HumanosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The objective was to conduct a scoping review of the literature and develop consensus-derived research priorities for future research inquiry in an effort to (1) identify and summarize existing research related to race, racism, and antiracism in emergency medicine (EM) and adjacent fields and (2) set the agenda for EM research in these topic areas. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature using PubMed and EMBASE databases, as well as review of citations from included articles, formed the basis for discussions with community stakeholders, who in turn helped to inform and shape the discussion and recommendations of participants in the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) consensus conference. Through electronic surveys and two virtual meetings held in April 2021, consensus was reached on terminology, language, and priority research questions, which were rated on importance or impact (highest, medium, lower) and feasibility or ease of answering (easiest, moderate, difficult). RESULTS: A total of 344 articles were identified through the literature search, of which 187 met inclusion criteria; an additional 34 were identified through citation review. Findings of racial inequities in EM and related fields were grouped in 28 topic areas, from which emerged 44 key research questions. A dearth of evidence for interventions to address manifestations of racism in EM was noted throughout. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of racism in EM emerged in nearly every facet of our literature. Key research priorities identified through consensus processes provide a roadmap for addressing and eliminating racism and other systems of oppression in EM.
Asunto(s)
Medicina de Emergencia , Racismo , Humanos , Consenso , PredicciónRESUMEN
Purpose: To describe trends in emergency medicine faculty demographics, examining changes in the proportion of historically underrepresented groups including female, Black, and Latinx faculty over time. Methods: Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges faculty roster (1990-2020) were used to assess the changing demographics of full-time emergency medicine faculty. Descriptive statistics, graphic visualizations, and logistic regression modeling were used to illustrate trends in the proportion of female, Black, and Latinx faculty. Odds ratios (OR) were used to describe the estimated annual rate of change of underrepresented demographic groups. Results: The number of full-time emergency medicine faculty increased from 214 in 1990 to 5874 in 2020. Female emergency medicine faculty demonstrated increases in representation overall, from 35 (16.36%) in 1990 to 2247 (38.25%) in 2020, suggesting a 3% estimated annual rate of increase (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.03-1.04) and within each academic rank. A very small positive trend was noted among Latinx faculty (n = 3, 1.40% in 1990 to n = 326, 5.55% in 2020; OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.01-1.02), whereas an even smaller, statistically insignificant increase was observed among Black emergency medicine faculty during the 31-year study period (N = 9, 4.21% in 1990 and N = 266, 4.53% in 2020; OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99-1.00). Conclusions: Although female physicians have progressed toward equitable representation among academic emergency medicine faculty, no meaningful progress has been made toward racial parity. The persistent underrepresentation of Black and Latinx physicians in the academic emergency medicine workforce underscores the need for urgent structural changes to address contemporary manifestations of racism in academic medicine and beyond.
RESUMEN
Background: The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) has a core value to promote a diverse workforce for patients, providers, and learners. Understanding the organization's membership demographics and how that compares to the academic emergency medicine (EM) workforce is prerequisite to the success of this core value. Methods: We obtained 2020 faculty membership data sets from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and SAEM; data included self-reported sex, race and ethnicity, and academic rank (professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and instructor). We employed standardized mean difference (SMD) to quantify difference in proportions between data sets. Results: We identified 5874 (AAMC) and 2785 (SAEM) faculty. The AAMC (38.3%) and the SAEM (41.3%) had similar proportions of overall female faculty (SMD 0.063) although SAEM (compared to AAMC) had a higher proportion of female full (25.5% vs. 20.5%, SMD 0.121) and assistant (46.5% vs. 41.2%, SMD 0.106) professors. With the exception of Hispanic instructors, SAEM (compared to AAMC) also had higher proportions of Black and Hispanic female faculty at all ranks (SMD ranging from 0.109 to 0.777). Conclusion: SAEM faculty demographics generally reflect that of the academic EM workforce demographics reported in the AAMC database and that overall, the proportions of female, Black, and Hispanic faculty in SAEM are slightly larger than those in the AAMC database. However, faculty who identify as Black or Hispanic in both the AAMC and the SAEM databases (compared to the overall U.S. population) are dramatically underrepresented.
RESUMEN
The COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) Pandemic has revealed multiple structural inequities within the United States (US), with high social vulnerability index communities shouldering the brunt of death and disability of this pandemic. BIPOC/Latinx people have undergone hospitalizations and death at magnitudes greater than White people in the US. The untold second casualties are health care workers that are suffering from increased risk of infection, death, and mental health crisis. Many health care workers are abandoning the profession all together. Although Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) mean to guide the ethical allocation of scare resources, they frequently use scoring systems that are inherently biased. This raises concern for the application of equity in CSC. Data examining the impact of these protocols on health equity is scarce. Structural maltreatment in healthcare and inequities have led to cumulative harms, physiologic weathering and structural adversities for residents of the US. We propose the use of Restorative Justice (RJ) practices to develop CSC rooted in inclusion and equity. The RJ framework utilizes capacity building, circle process, and conferences to convene groups in a respectful environment for dialogue, healing, accountability, and action plan creation. A phased, non-faith-based facilitated RJ approach for CSC development (or revision) that fosters ethically equitable resource distribution, authentic community engagement, and accountability is shared. This opportunity for local, inclusive decision making and problem solving will both reflect the needs and give agency to community members while supporting the dismantling of structural racism and oppressive, exclusive policies. The authors are asking legislative and health system policy makers to adopt Restorative Justice practices for Crisis Standards of Care development. The US cannot afford to have additional reductions in inhabitant lifespan or the talent pool within healthcare.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiología , Humanos , Pandemias , Justicia Social , Nivel de Atención , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a national epidemic, and Black and Hispanic patients are less likely to receive treatment when compared to white patients. In this study, race was used as a proxy to assess potential effects of racism on the referral process for OUD treatment. Our primary aim was to examine whether Black or Hispanic patients experienced increased barriers to inpatient OUD detoxification (detox) placement at a community-integrated, substance use disorder support program based in an emergency department (ED). Our secondary aim was to determine if Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to have >3 referrals. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a large urban safety-net hospital and included patients seen in the ED from July 2018 to September 2019 with ICD-10 codes for an opioid-related visit and who sought placement to inpatient detox. A generalized linear mixed model controlling for multiple visits, age, sex, insurance, time, day of week, and time of year was used to assess the association between race/ethnicity and hypothesized barriers to placement. The proportion of patients with >3 visits for referral to inpatient detox was compared between Black and Hispanic patients and white patients using a chi-squared test. RESULTS: We identified 1733 encounters from 782 unique patients seeking connection to inpatient detox for OUD. Of the 1733 encounters, 45% were among Black and Hispanic patients. Hispanic and Black men had significantly lower odds of having a barrier to inpatient OUD detox than white men (OR = 0.734, 95% CI 0.542-0.995). No significant difference was found for Hispanic and Black women (OR = 1.212, 95% CI 0.705-2.082). More Black and Hispanic patients experienced >3 referrals to inpatient detox compared to white patients (19.2% vs 12.9%, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests in the context of near-universal health insurance coverage, an ED-based OUD support program staffed by diverse community members can mitigate inequities in access to inpatient detox. However, the increased number of ED visits for OUD detox placement by Black and Hispanic patients suggests racial inequities in OUD treatment exist after linkage to care. Additional research should explore the causes, specifically structural and interpersonal racism, and determine solutions to address racial inequities in detox placement as well as maintenance in treatment programs.
Asunto(s)
Servicios Médicos de Urgencia , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides , Etnicidad , Femenino , Humanos , Pacientes Internos , Masculino , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/tratamiento farmacológico , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/epidemiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estados UnidosAsunto(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemias , Algoritmos , Hospitales , Humanos , Asignación de Recursos , SARS-CoV-2 , Nivel de AtenciónRESUMEN
Background Racial inequities in mortality and readmission for heart failure (HF) are well documented. Inequitable access to specialized cardiology care during admissions may contribute to inequity, and the drivers of this inequity are poorly understood. Methodology This prospective observational study explored proposed drivers of racial inequities in cardiology admissions among Black, Latinx, and white adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) with symptoms of HF. Surveys of ED providers examined perceptions of patient self-advocacy, outreach to other clinicians (e.g., outpatient cardiologist), diagnostic uncertainty, and other active co-morbid conditions. Service census, bed availability, prior admission service, and other structural factors were explored through the electronic medical record. Results Complete data were available for 61/135 patients admitted with HF during the study period, which halted early due to coronavirus disease 2019. No significant differences emerged in admission to cardiology versus medicine based on age, sex, insurance status, education level, or perceived race/ethnicity. White patients were perceived as advocating for admission to cardiology more frequently (18.9 vs. 5.6%) and more strenuously than Black patients (p = 0.097). ED clinicians more often reported having spoken with the patient's outpatient cardiologist for whites than for Black or Latinx patients (24.3 vs. 16.7%, p = 0.069). Conclusions Theorized drivers of racial inequities in admission service did not reach statistical significance, possibly due to underpowering, the Hawthorne effect, or clinician behavior change based on knowledge of previously identified inequities. The observed trend towards racial differences in coordination of care between ED and outpatient providers, as well as in either actual or perceived self-advocacy by patients, may be as-yet undemonstrated components of structural racism driving HF care inequities.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The role of gender in interprofessional interactions is poorly understood. This mixed-methods study explored perceptions of gender bias in interactions between emergency medicine (EM) residents and nurses. METHODS: We analyzed qualitative interviews and focus groups with residents and nurses from two hospitals for dominant themes. An electronic survey, developed through an inductive-deductive approach informed by qualitative data, was administered to EM residents and nurses. Quantitative analyses included descriptive statistics and between-group comparisons. RESULTS: Six nurses and 14 residents participated in interviews and focus groups. Key qualitative themes included gender differences in interprofessional communication, specific examples of, and responses to, gender bias. Female nurses perceived female residents as more approachable and collaborative than male residents, while female residents perceived nurses' questions as doubting their clinical judgment. A total of 134 individuals (32%) completed the survey. Females more frequently perceived interprofessional gender bias (mean 30.9; 95% confidence interval {CI}, 25.6, 36.2; vs 17.6 [95% CI, 10.3, 24.9). Residents reported witnessing interprofessional gender bias more frequently than nurses (58.7 (95% CI, 48.6, 68.7 vs 23.9 (95% CI, 19.4, 28.4). Residents reported that gender bias affected job satisfaction (P = 0.002), patient care (P = 0.001), wellness (P = 0.003), burnout (P = 0.002), and self-doubt (P = 0.017) more frequently than nurses. CONCLUSION: Perceived interprofessional gender bias negatively impacts personal wellbeing and workplace satisfaction, particularly among female residents. Key institutional stakeholders including residency, nursing, and hospital leadership should invest the resources necessary to develop and integrate evidence-based strategies to improve interprofessional relationships that will ultimately enhance residency training, work climate, and patient care.
Asunto(s)
Medicina de Emergencia , Internado y Residencia , Medicina de Emergencia/educación , Femenino , Humanos , Satisfacción en el Trabajo , Liderazgo , Masculino , SexismoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) provide a framework for the fair allocation of scarce resources during emergencies. The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has disproportionately affected Black and Latinx populations in the USA. No literature exists comparing state-level CSC. It is unknown how equitably CSC would allocate resources. METHODS: The authors identified all publicly available state-level CSC through online searches and communication with state governments. Publicly available CSC were systematically reviewed for content including ethical framework and prioritization strategy. RESULTS: CSC were identified for 29 states. Ethical principles were explicitly stated in 23 (79.3%). Equity was listed as a guiding ethical principle in 15 (51.7%); 19 (65.5%) said decisions should not factor in race, ethnicity, disability, and other identity-based factors. Ten states (34.4%) allowed for consideration of societal value, which could lead to prioritization of health care workers and other essential personnel. Twenty-one (72.4%) CSC provided a specific strategy for prioritizing patients for critical care resources, e.g., ventilators. All incorporated Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores; 15 (71.4%) of these specific CSC considered comorbid conditions (e.g., cardiac disease, renal failure, malignancy) in resource allocation decisions. CONCLUSION: There is wide variability in the existence and specificity of CSC across the USA. CSC may disproportionately impact disadvantaged populations due to inequities in comorbid condition prevalence, expected lifespan, and other effects of systemic racism.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/etnología , Asignación de Recursos para la Atención de Salud/ética , Asignación de Recursos para la Atención de Salud/organización & administración , Equidad en Salud , Nivel de Atención , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
Background Gender and racial disparities in academic medicine have recently garnered much attention. Implicit Association Tests (IATs) offer a validated means of evaluating unconscious associations and preferences. This study examines the perceived role of implicit bias in faculty development in academic emergency medicine (EM). Methods EM faculty at a large urban academic medical center were invited to independently participate in a self-reflection assessment in preparation for a faculty retreat session discussing diversity, equity, and inclusion. Participants completed two IATs designed to examine gender associations (gender IAT) and race preferences (race IAT) followed by a short anonymous survey where IAT scores were recorded. The survey also captured demographic information and perceptions about the impact of gender and racial biases in faculty development. Results Forty faculty members (66%) completed the survey; 70% were male and 80% white. The majority (59%) reported gender IAT results indicating automatic male-sciences and female-liberal arts associations. Nearly half (45%) reported race IAT results indicating an automatic preference for white people. More than 70% of males reported that faculty recruitment, development, and promotion decisions were 'never' or 'seldom' affected by gender bias, while more than 80% reported racial bias 'never' or 'seldom' affects these decisions. Female faculty more frequently perceived adverse effects of unconscious gender and race biases. Conclusion Our group of academic physicians reported IAT results showing different levels of implicit bias compared to the general population. Female faculty may be both more aware of and more susceptible to the adverse effects of unconscious biases. Further study is needed to determine both the extent to which unconscious biases affect the academic workplace, as well as ways in which such unintentional forms of discrimination can be eliminated. Unconscious biases are not unique to EM. Intentional efforts to increase self-awareness of these 'blind spots' may help mitigate their impact and foster a more diverse and inclusive healthcare environment.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Social risks adversely affect health and are associated with increased healthcare utilization and costs. Emergency department (ED) patients have high rates of social risk; however, little is known about best practices for ED-based screening or linkage to community resources. We examined the perspectives of patients and community organizations regarding social risk screening and linkage from the ED. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of ED patients and local community organization staff. Participants completed a brief demographic survey, health literacy assessment, and qualitative interview focused on barriers/facilitators to social risk screening in the ED, and ideas for screening and linkage interventions in the ED. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish, recorded, transcribed, and coded. Themes were identified by consensus. RESULTS: We conducted 22 interviews with 16 patients and six community organization staff. Three categories of themes emerged. The first related to the importance of social risk screening in the ED. The second category encompassed challenges regarding screening and linkage, including fear, mistrust, transmission of accurate information, and time/resource constraints. The third category included suggestions for improvement and program development. Patients had varied preferences for verbal vs electronic strategies for screening. Community organization staff emphasized resource scarcity and multimodal communication strategies. CONCLUSION: The development of flexible, multimodal, social risk screening tools, and the creation and maintenance of an accurate database of local resources, are strategies that may facilitate improved identification of social risk and successful linkage to available community resources.
Asunto(s)
Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Determinantes Sociales de la Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto , Servicios de Salud Comunitaria/métodos , Servicios de Salud Comunitaria/normas , Femenino , Necesidades y Demandas de Servicios de Salud , Humanos , Masculino , Tamizaje Masivo/métodos , Massachusetts/epidemiología , Investigación Cualitativa , Mejoramiento de la Calidad , Factores SocioeconómicosAsunto(s)
Betacoronavirus , Infecciones por Coronavirus/etnología , Disparidades en Atención de Salud/etnología , Puntuaciones en la Disfunción de Órganos , Neumonía Viral/etnología , Grupos Raciales , Nivel de Atención , COVID-19 , Comorbilidad , Infecciones por Coronavirus/terapia , Recolección de Datos , Escala de Coma de Glasgow , Prioridades en Salud , Hispánicos o Latinos , Humanos , Pandemias , Neumonía Viral/terapia , Insuficiencia Respiratoria/etnología , Insuficiencia Respiratoria/terapia , Factores de Riesgo , SARS-CoV-2 , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Determinantes Sociales de la Salud , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
Breastfeeding has demonstrable benefits for children and their mothers; however, breastfeeding can be particularly difficult for women who return to the workplace in the months after a child's birth. The challenge of continuing to provide breast milk to an infant after a mother returns to work is evident in the day-to-day lives of health professionals who choose to do so and is reflected in the literature, which shows a marked reduction in breastfeeding rates corresponding to a woman's return to work. These barriers are even more apparent when travel is required for professional obligations or advancement, such as to attend or present at national conferences or to take standardized examinations at test centers. This article provides guidelines and practical advice for event organizers and testing centers to support a lactating mother's ability to provide for her child without compromising her professional career. In particular, we describe the physical requirements of lactation spaces, considerations for milk storage, ways to create a lactation-friendly environment, and unique considerations and accommodations for test takers and test centers. Supporting lactating health professionals should be seen as part of a larger endeavor to support gender equity, advance women in medicine, and integrate wellness and family into our professional lives.
Asunto(s)
Lactancia Materna/psicología , Reinserción al Trabajo , Apoyo Social , Congresos como Asunto , Femenino , Humanos , Lactante , Viaje , Lugar de TrabajoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Racial inequities for patients with heart failure (HF) have been widely documented. HF patients who receive cardiology care during a hospital admission have better outcomes. It is unknown whether there are differences in admission to a cardiology or general medicine service by race. This study examined the relationship between race and admission service, and its effect on 30-day readmission and mortality Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study from September 2008 to November 2017 at a single large urban academic referral center of all patients self-referred to the emergency department and admitted to either the cardiology or general medicine service with a principal diagnosis of HF, who self-identified as white, black, or Latinx. We used multivariable generalized estimating equation models to assess the relationship between race and admission to the cardiology service. We used Cox regression to assess the association between race, admission service, and 30-day readmission and mortality. RESULTS: Among 1967 unique patients (66.7% white, 23.6% black, and 9.7% Latinx), black and Latinx patients had lower rates of admission to the cardiology service than white patients (adjusted rate ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98, for black; adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.97 for Latinx). Female sex and age >75 years were also independently associated with lower rates of admission to the cardiology service. Admission to the cardiology service was independently associated with decreased readmission within 30 days, independent of race. CONCLUSIONS: Black and Latinx patients were less likely to be admitted to cardiology for HF care. This inequity may, in part, drive racial inequities in HF outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Centros Médicos Académicos , Negro o Afroamericano , Servicio de Cardiología en Hospital , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud , Disparidades en Atención de Salud/etnología , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/terapia , Hispánicos o Latinos , Admisión del Paciente , Población Blanca , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Boston/epidemiología , Femenino , Disparidades en el Estado de Salud , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/etnología , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/mortalidad , Humanos , Pacientes Internos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Readmisión del Paciente , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
A healthy 18-year-old male presented to the emergency department with chest pain, palpitations, and dyspnea. His exam was unremarkable; however, point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) revealed right ventricular strain with a D-sign and enlarged right ventricle. He subsequently reported a history of factor V Leiden. His D-dimer was markedly elevated, and a computed tomography angiogram of the chest demonstrated submassive pulmonary embolism (PE). He was taken to the catheterization lab for directed thrombolysis and was discharged in good condition two days later. Factor V Leiden is the most common genetic cause of venous thromboembolism. POCUS can facilitate rapid diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with acute PE.