Two Weeks Versus One Week of Maximal Patient-Intensivist Continuity for Adult Medical Intensive Care Patients: A Two-Center Target Trial Emulation.

OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes for 2 weeks vs. 1 week of maximal patient-intensivist continuity in the ICU. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Two U.S. urban, teaching, medical ICUs where intensivists were scheduled for 2-week service blocks: site A was in the Midwest and site B was in the Northeast. PATIENTS: Patients 18 years old or older admitted to a study ICU between March 1, 2017, and February 28, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We applied target trial emulation to compare admission during an intensivist's first week (as a proxy for 2 wk of maximal continuity) vs. admission during their second week (as a proxy for 1 wk of maximal continuity). Outcomes included hospital mortality, ICU length of stay, and, for mechanically ventilated patients, duration of ventilation. Exploratory outcomes included imaging, echocardiogram, and consultation orders. We used inverse probability weighting to adjust for baseline differences and random-effects meta-analysis to calculate overall effect estimates. Among 2571 patients, 1254 were admitted during an intensivist's first week and 1317 were admitted during a second week. At sites A and B, hospital mortality rates were 25.8% and 24.2%, median ICU length of stay were 4 and 2 days, and median mechanical ventilation durations were 3 and 3 days, respectively. There were no differences in adjusted mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.01 [95% CI, 0.96-1.06]) or ICU length of stay (-0.25 d [-0.82 d to +0.32 d]) for 2 weeks vs. 1 week of maximal continuity. Among mechanically ventilated patients, there were no differences in adjusted mortality (OR, 1.00 [0.87-1.16]), ICU length of stay (+0.06 d [-0.78 d to +0.91 d]), or duration of mechanical ventilation (+0.37 d [-0.46 d to +1.21 d]) for 2 weeks vs. 1 week of maximal continuity. CONCLUSIONS: Two weeks of maximal patient-intensivist continuity was not associated with differences in clinical outcomes compared with 1 week in two medical ICUs.

Self-reported Patient-perpetrated Sexual Harassment and Subsequent Reporting Among Health Care Clinicians in Urology and Obstetrics-Gynecology: A Cohort Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the experiences of urologists and obstetricians-gynecologists (obgyns) with patient-perpetrated sexual harassment (PPSH) since the clinical focus of these specialists may make them particularly vulnerable to PPSH. METHODS: A multiple-choice anonymous online survey was administered in the Departments of Urology and Obgyn at a single institution from 22 September, 2022-18 October, 2022. The survey assessed if clinicians had experienced PPSH, including gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and/or sexual coercion from patients, where PPSH was witnessed or experienced, and whether implementation of chaperones impacted their experiences with PPSH. We conducted descriptive analysis by clinician sex, department, and form of PPSH experienced. We also performed logistic regression analysis to identify clinician factors associated with experiencing PPSH. RESULTS: Majority of respondents reported that they experienced or witnessed PPSH (78%, N = 100). Gender harassment was the most common form of PPSH experienced by clinicians (53%, N = 68). PPSH was most often experienced or witnessed in clinic (74%, N = 70) and inpatient wards (66%, N = 62). Of those who utilized chaperones, 80% (N = 57) of clinicians reported they either did not reduce or were unsure if they reduced PPSH. When adjusting for clinician factors, being a female clinician (adjusted odd ratio [aOR] = 5.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5-17.3), trainee (aOR = 6.9, 95% CI 1.1-44.6), or a urologist (aOR = 18.1, 95% CI 2.0-166.1) were associated with experiencing PPSH. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the pervasiveness of PPSH among urologists and obgyns. Future studies should elucidate what policy changes can be effective in protecting clinicians from PPSH.