Barriers to sexual and reproductive care among cisgender, heterosexual and LGBTQIA + adolescents in the border region: provider and adolescent perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: The United States (U.S.) has higher rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and adolescent pregnancy than most other industrialized countries. Furthermore, health disparities persist among racial and ethnic minority adolescents (e.g., African American and Latinx) and in counties located along the U.S.-Mexico border region-they demonstrate the highest rates of STIs and unintended pregnancy among adolescents. METHODS: Qualitative data were collected as part of formative research for the development of a mobile app that provides gender-inclusive sexual education to adolescents living in the U.S.-Mexico border region. From August 2019 to March 2020, the study team conducted 11 in-depth interviews with healthcare providers and three focus groups with cisgender, heterosexual, and SGM adolescents ages 15-18 (n = 20). RESULTS: Providers and adolescents reported similar barriers to accessing SRH in this region such as transportation, lack of insurance and cost of services or accessing services without their parent's knowledge. However, providers shared that some adolescents in this region face extreme poverty, family separation (i.e., parent has been deported), have a mixed family legal status or are binational and have to travel every day from Mexico to the U.S. for school. These challenges further limit their ability to access SRH. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents in the U.S.-Mexico border region face unique economic and social challenges that further limit their access to SRH care, making them uniquely vulnerable to STIs and unintended pregnancy. The prototype of the app was developed based on the needs expressed by providers and adolescents, including providing comprehensive Sex Ed and mapping of free comprehensive and confidencial SRH services available in the region and is being pilot tested. Our findings provide further evidence for the need for interventions and service delivery, programs tailored for residents in the border region.

Effectiveness of ways to improve detection and rescue of deteriorating patients.

A number of interventions has been introduced to improve recognition of and response to deterioration, but evidence for improved outcomes is mixed. Future evaluations need better articulation of intervention components and outcomes, longer run-in times and consideration of the interplay between concurrent interventions.

Avoidability of hospital deaths and association with hospital-wide mortality ratios: retrospective case record review and regression analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of avoidable deaths (due to acts of omission and commission) in acute hospital trusts in England and to determine the association with the trust's hospital-wide standardised mortality ratio assessed using the two commonly used methods--the hospital standardised mortality ratio (HSMR) and the summary hospital level mortality indicator (SHMI). DESIGN: Retrospective case record review of deaths. SETTING: 34 English acute hospital trusts (10 in 2009 and 24 in 2012/13) randomly selected from across the spectrum of HSMR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Avoidable death, defined as those with at least a 50% probability of avoidability in view of trained medical reviewers. Association of avoidable death proportion with the HSMR and the SHMI assessed using regression coefficients, to estimate the increase in avoidable death proportion for a one standard deviation increase in standardised mortality ratio. PARTICIPANTS: 100 randomly selected hospital deaths from each trust. RESULTS: The proportion of avoidable deaths was 3.6% (95% confidence interval 3.0% to 4.3%). It was lower in 2012/13 (3.0%, 2.4% to 3.7%) than in 2009 (5.2%, 3.8% to 6.6%). This difference is subject to several factors, including reviewers' greater awareness in 2012/13 of orders not to resuscitate, patients being perceived as sicker on admission, minor differences in review form questions, and cultural changes that might have discouraged reviewers from criticising other clinicians. There was a small but statistically non-significant association between HSMR and the proportion of avoidable deaths (regression coefficient 0.3, 95% confidence interval -0.2 to 0.7). The regression coefficient was similar for both time periods (0.1 and 0.3). This implies that a difference in HSMR of between 105 and 115 would be associated with an increase of only 0.3% (95% confidence interval -0.2% to 0.7%) in the proportion of avoidable deaths. A similar weak non-significant association was observed for SHMI (regression coefficient 0.3, 95% confidence interval -0.3 to 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: The small proportion of deaths judged to be avoidable means that any metric based on mortality is unlikely to reflect the quality of a hospital. The lack of association between the proportion of avoidable deaths and hospital-wide SMRs partly reflects methodological shortcomings in both metrics. Instead, reviews of individual deaths should focus on identifying ways of improving the quality of care, whereas the use of standardised mortality ratios should be restricted to assessing the quality of care for conditions with high case fatality for which good quality clinical data exist.