A new framework for Australian specialty colleges and other healthcare leaders to address bullying, discrimination, and harassment that involves doctors.

Bullying, discrimination, and harassment (BDH) within healthcare teams is a global issue that risks healthcare worker wellbeing, patient safety, public health, and industry reputations. Collectively, fragmented regulation, weak detection and correction processes, conflicts of interest, and fear of retribution for complainants create an environment that enables perpetrators. Specialty training Colleges and other stakeholders can collaborate to address this issue more effectively. This paper examines Australian processes and proposes that the existing disparate mechanisms should be replaced with a national BDH framework that is supported by an independent investigation body. The authors seek to stimulate discussion to reform practice in Australia and in other countries with similar health systems.

Systematic audit of Australian specialty colleges' policies on bullying, discrimination, and harassment.

Objective To support policy makers and healthcare workers to reduce high rates of bullying, discrimination, and harassment (BDH) that affect doctors in Australian specialty training sites. Methods This audit assessed the quality of policies regarding BDH and associated complaints of the Australian Medical Council-accredited Australasian specialty training Colleges (Colleges). Policies were systematically identified and scored against a national standard BDH policy checklist. Results Fourteen of the 16 Colleges have each written and curated their own BDH policies for their members, with wide variation between Colleges regarding content and processes. This impairs the efficacy of BDH handling in specialty training sites. Conclusions Key areas for improvement were identified. A checklist is proposed that is specific to College BDH policies and processes involving specialty training sites.

Association between bisphosphonate use and COVID-19 related outcomes.

Background: Although there are several efficacious vaccines against COVID-19, vaccination rates in many regions around the world remain insufficient to prevent continued high disease burden and emergence of viral variants. Repurposing of existing therapeutics that prevent or mitigate severe COVID-19 could help to address these challenges. The objective of this study was to determine whether prior use of bisphosphonates is associated with reduced incidence and/or severity of COVID-19. Methods: A retrospective cohort study utilizing payer-complete health insurance claims data from 8,239,790 patients with continuous medical and prescription insurance January 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020 was performed. The primary exposure of interest was use of any bisphosphonate from January 1, 2019 to February 29, 2020. Bisphosphonate users were identified as patients having at least one bisphosphonate claim during this period, who were then 1:1 propensity score-matched to bisphosphonate non-users by age, gender, insurance type, primary-care-provider visit in 2019, and comorbidity burden. Main outcomes of interest included: (a) any testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection; (b) COVID-19 diagnosis; and (c) hospitalization with a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 1, 2020 and June 30, 2020. Multiple sensitivity analyses were also performed to assess core study outcomes amongst more restrictive matches between BP users/non-users, as well as assessing the relationship between BP-use and other respiratory infections (pneumonia, acute bronchitis) both during the same study period as well as before the COVID outbreak. Results: A total of 7,906,603 patients for whom continuous medical and prescription insurance information was available were selected. A total of 450,366 bisphosphonate users were identified and 1:1 propensity score-matched to bisphosphonate non-users. Bisphosphonate users had lower odds ratios (OR) of testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR = 0.22; 95%CI:0.21-0.23; p<0.001), COVID-19 diagnosis (OR = 0.23; 95%CI:0.22-0.24; p<0.001), and COVID-19-related hospitalization (OR = 0.26; 95%CI:0.24-0.29; p<0.001). Sensitivity analyses yielded results consistent with the primary analysis. Bisphosphonate-use was also associated with decreased odds of acute bronchitis (OR = 0.23; 95%CI:0.22-0.23; p<0.001) or pneumonia (OR = 0.32; 95%CI:0.31-0.34; p<0.001) in 2019, suggesting that bisphosphonates may protect against respiratory infections by a variety of pathogens, including but not limited to SARS-CoV-2. Conclusions: Prior bisphosphonate-use was associated with dramatically reduced odds of SARS-CoV-2 testing, COVID-19 diagnosis, and COVID-19-related hospitalizations. Prospective clinical trials will be required to establish a causal role for bisphosphonate-use in COVID-19-related outcomes. Funding: This study was supported by NIH grants, AR068383 and AI155865, a grant from MassCPR (to UHvA) and a CRI Irvington postdoctoral fellowship, CRI2453 (to PH).

The COVID-19 pandemic challenged the world to rapidly develop strategies to combat the virus responsible for the disease. While several effective vaccines and new drugs have since become available, these therapies are not always easy to access and take time to generate and distribute. To address these challenges, researchers have tried to find ways to repurpose existing medications that are already commonly used and known to be safe. One potential candidate are bisphosphonates, a family of drugs used to reduce bone loss in patients with osteoporosis. Bisphosphonates have been shown to boost the immune response to viral infections, and it has been observed that patients prescribed these drugs are less likely to develop or die from pneumonia. But whether bisphosphonates are effective against COVID-19 had not been fully explored. To investigate, Thompson, Wang et al. analyzed insurance claims data from about 8 million patients between January 2019 and June 2020, including around 450,000 individuals that had filled a prescription for bisphosphonates. Patients prescribed bisphosphonates were then compared to non-users that were similar in terms of their gender, age, the type of health insurance they had, their access to healthcare, and other health comorbidities. The study revealed that bisphosphonate users were around three to five times less likely to be tested for, diagnosed with, or hospitalized for COVID-19 during the first four months of the pandemic. They were also less commonly diagnosed with other respiratory infections in 2019, like bronchitis or pneumonia. Although the results suggest that bisphosphonates provide some protection against COVID-19, they cannot directly prove it. Verifying that bisphosphonates can treat or prevent COVID-19 and/or other respiratory infections requires more studies that follow patients in real-time rather than studying previously collected data. If such studies confirm the link, bisphosphonates could be a helpful tool to protect against COVID-19 or other virus outbreaks. The drugs are widely available, safe, and affordable, and therefore may provide an alternative for patients who cannot access other medications or vaccines.

Health Inequalities in the Use of Telehealth in the United States in the Lens of COVID-19.

The use of remote health care services, or telehealth, is a promising solution for providing health care to those unable to access care in person easily and thus helping to reduce health inequalities. The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting stay-at-home orders in the United States have created an optimal situation for the use of telehealth services for non-life-threatening health care use. A retrospective cohort study was performed using Kantar's Claritis™ database, which links insurance claims encounters (Komodo Health) with patient-reported data (Kantar Health, National Health & Wellness Survey). Logistic regression models (odds ratios [OR], 95% confidence intervals [CI]) examined predictors of telehealth versus in-person encounters. Adults ages ≥18 years eligible for payer-complete health care encounters in both March 2019 and March 2020 were identified (n = 35,376). Telehealth use increased from 0.2% in 2019 to 1.9% in 2020. In adjusted models of respondents with ≥1 health care encounter (n = 11,614), age, marital status, geographic residence (region; urban/rural), and presence of anxiety or depression were significant predictors of telehealth compared with in-person use in March 2020. For example, adults 45-46 years versus 18-44 years were less likely to use telehealth (OR 0.684, 95% CI: 0.561-0.834), and respondents living in urban versus rural areas were more likely to use telehealth (OR 1.543, 95% CI: 1.153-2.067). Substantial increases in telehealth use were observed during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States; however, disparities existed. These inequalities represent the baseline landscape that population health management must monitor and address during this pandemic.