A Pilot Sexual and Gender Minority Health Curriculum for the Largest Public Health Care System in the United States.

PROBLEM: Sexual and gender minority (SGM) people face multiple health disparities. Clinicians often lack adequate training to address health needs of SGM people. In this setting, some health care organizations have sought to develop system-wide curricula to build clinician knowledge and capacity around SGM health. APPROACH: NYC Health + Hospitals partnered with the National LGBTQIA+ [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual] Health Education Center at The Fenway Institute to design and implement a novel SGM health care curriculum, offered from 2017 to 2020. The pilot program featured a 90-minute live introductory session, a pretest, a post-test, and six 45-minute online modules focusing on a range of topics in SGM health care. OUTCOMES: Of approximately 35,000 employees from a range of settings and professional roles across NYC Health + Hospitals, 792 participated in the pilot program; most were clinicians at acute care hospitals, with the single largest group being attending clinicians. The proportion of eligible employees completing each component of the curriculum varied: 544 of 792 (68.7%) completed the online pretest, while 373 of 792 (47.1%) completed the module on behavioral health. Of 373 participants who completed both the pre- and post-tests, mean scores rose significantly from 60.9 on the pretest to 81.9 on the post-test ( P < .001). NEXT STEPS: Future efforts should focus on increasing staff participation in the curriculum through scale-up efforts across the health care system, as well as measuring patient outcomes to assess the clinical impact of the initiative.

Cervical decompression and reconstruction without intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring.

OBJECT: The primary goal of this study was to review the immediate postoperative neurological function in patients surgically treated for symptomatic cervical spine disease without intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. The secondary goal was to assess the economic impact of intraoperative monitoring (IOM) in this patient population. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of 720 consecutively treated patients who underwent cervical spine procedures. The patients were identified and the data were collected by individuals who were not involved in their care. RESULTS: A total of 1534 cervical spine levels were treated in 720 patients using anterior, posterior, and combined (360°) approaches. Myelopathy was present preoperatively in 308 patients. There were 185 patients with increased signal intensity within the spinal cord on preoperative T2-weighted MR images, of whom 43 patients had no clinical evidence of myelopathy. Three patients (0.4%) exhibited a new neurological deficit postoperatively. Of these patients, 1 had a preoperative diagnosis of radiculopathy, while the other 2 were treated for myelopathy. The new postoperative deficits completely resolved in all 3 patients and did not require additional treatment. The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for IOM during cervical decompression include 95925 and 95926 for somatosensory evoked potential monitoring of the upper and lower extremities, respectively, as well as 95928 and 95929 for motor evoked potential monitoring of the upper and lower extremities. In addition to the charge for the baseline [monitoring] study, patients are charged hourly for ongoing electrophysiology testing and monitoring using the CPT code 95920. Based on these codes and assuming an average of 4 hours of monitoring time per surgical case, the savings realized in this group of patients was estimated to be $1,024,754. CONCLUSIONS: With the continuing increase in health care costs, it is our responsibility as providers to minimize expenses when possible. This should be accomplished without compromising the quality of care to patients. This study demonstrates that decompression and reconstruction for symptomatic cervical spine disease without IOM may reduce the cost of treatment without adversely impacting patient safety.

Patient-identified barriers to asthma treatment adherence: responses to interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires.

This article reviews 32 patient-interview studies that revealed that the most common barriers to adherence revealed by patients included concerns about drug safety and cost and a belief that the patient's asthma was not severe enough to require daily treatment. Important but less commonly cited concerns included worry about dependence or diminished effectiveness with long-term use of the medication. Children and their parents expressed concerns about safety, dependence, peer stigmatization, and parent-child conflict over taking medication. Low-income and minority patients cited similar concerns and barriers that included cost, difficulty of obtaining medication, daily life hassles, and a general distrust of the medical establishment. The information obtained from patients' perspectives indicates the need to reappraise current strategies for the management of asthma, including a more flexible approach to the use of expert guidelines for the treatment of asthma.