A fellow-run clinic achieves similar patient outcomes as faculty clinics: A safe and feasible model for gynecologic oncology fellow education.

OBJECTIVES: Fellow involvement in patient care is important for education, but effect on patient care is unclear. Our aim was to compare patient outcomes in gynecologic oncology attending clinics versus a fellow training clinic at a large academic medical center. METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive gynecologic oncology patients from six attending clinics and one faculty-supervised fellow clinic was used to analyze differences based on patient demographics, cancer characteristics, and practice patterns. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS); secondary outcomes included recurrence-free survival (RFS), postoperative complications and chemotherapy within the last 30 days of life. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests. RESULTS: Of 159 patients, 76 received care in the attending clinic and 83 in the fellow clinic. Patients in the fellow clinic were younger, less likely to be Caucasian, and more overweight, but cancer site and proportion of advanced stage disease were similar. Both clinics had similar rates of moderate to severe adverse events related to surgery (15% vs. 8%, p = .76), chemotherapy (21% vs. 23%, p = .40), and radiation (14% vs. 17%, p = .73). There was no difference in median RFS in the fellow compared to attending clinic (38 vs. 47 months, p = .78). OS on both univariate (49 months-fellow clinic, 60 months-attending clinic vs. p = .40) and multivariate analysis [hazard ratio 1.3 (0.57, 2.75), P = .58] was not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: A fellow-run gynecologic oncology clinic designed to provide learning opportunities does not compromise patient outcomes and is a safe and feasible option for fellow education.

Sociodemographic Factors Associated With Trans*female Youth's Access to Health Care in the San Francisco Bay Area.

PURPOSE: Trans*female youth (TFY) are an underserved population at risk for a variety of poor health outcomes, in part related to barriers to accessing health and mental health care. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data collected with 250 TFY aged 16-24 years in the San Francisco Bay Area from 2012 to 2014. Logistic regression was used to test associations between sociodemographic variables and barriers to gender identity-based medical and mental health care. RESULTS: Having a history of unstable housing was associated with significantly higher odds of problems accessing both medical care (odds ratio: 2.16, 95% confidence interval: 1.12-4.13) and mental health care due to gender identity (odds ratio 2.65, 95% confidence interval: 1.08-6.45). Conversely, identifying as genderqueer/genderfluid, Latina, or living in dependent housing was associated with access to either medical or mental health care. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions are needed to address housing and discrimination barring access to health care among TFY.