Academic Productivity of Equity-Deserving Physician Scholars During COVID-19: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic presented new barriers and exacerbated existing inequities for physician scholars. While COVID-19's impact on academic productivity among women has received attention, the pandemic may have posed additional challenges for scholars from a wider range of equity-deserving groups, including those who hold multiple equity-deserving identities. To examine this concern, the authors conducted a scoping review of the literature through an intersectionality lens. METHOD: The authors searched peer-reviewed literature published March 1, 2020, to December 16, 2021, in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and PubMed. The authors excluded studies not written in English and/or outside of academic medicine. From included studies, they extracted data regarding descriptions of how COVID-19 impacted academic productivity of equity-deserving physician scholars, analyses on the pandemic's reported impact on productivity of physician scholars from equity-deserving groups, and strategies provided to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on academic productivity of physician scholars from equity-deserving groups. RESULTS: Of 11,587 unique articles, 44 met inclusion criteria, including 15 nonempirical studies and 29 empirical studies (22 bibliometrics studies, 6 surveys, and 1 qualitative study). All included articles focused on the gendered impact of the pandemic on academic productivity. The majority of their recommendations focused on how to alleviate the burden of the pandemic on women, particularly those in the early stages of their career and/or with children, without consideration of scholars who hold multiple and intersecting identities from a wider range of equity-deserving groups. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate a lack of published literature on the pandemic's impact on physician scholars from equity-deserving groups, including a lack of consideration of physician scholars who experience multiple forms of discrimination. Well-intentioned measures by academic institutions to reduce the impact on scholars may inadvertently risk reproducing and sustaining inequities that equity-deserving scholars faced during the pandemic.

Moving beyond 'think leadership, think white male': the contents and contexts of equity, diversity and inclusion in physician leadership programmes.

The lack of both women and physicians from groups under-represented in medicine (UIM) in leadership has become a growing concern in healthcare. Despite increasing recognition that diversity in physician leadership can lead to reduced health disparities, improved population health and increased innovation and creativity in organisations, progress toward this goal is slow. One strategy for increasing the number of women and UIM physician leaders has been to create professional development opportunities that include leadership training on equity, diversity and inclusivity (EDI). However, the extent to which these concepts are explored in physician leadership programming is not known. It is also not clear whether this EDI content challenges structural barriers that perpetuate the status quo of white male leadership. To explore these issues, we conducted an environmental scan by adapting Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology to centre on three questions: How is EDI currently presented in physician leadership programming? How have these programmes been evaluated in the peer-reviewed literature? How is EDI presented and discussed by the wider medical community? We scanned institutional websites for physician leadership programmes, analysed peer-reviewed literature and examined material from medical education conferences. Our findings indicate that despite an apparent increase in the discussion of EDI concepts in the medical community, current physician leadership programming is built on theories that fail to move beyond race and gender as explanatory factors for a lack of diversity in physician leadership. To address inequity, physician leadership curricula should aim to equip physicians to identify and address the structural factors that perpetuate disparities.

Healthcare Professional and Patient Perceptions of Changes in Colorectal Cancer Care Delivery During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Impact on Health Inequalities.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic changed the way in which people were diagnosed and treated for cancer. We explored healthcare professional and patient perceptions of the main changes to colorectal cancer delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic and how they impacted on socioeconomic inequalities in care. METHODS: In 2020, using a qualitative approach, we interviewed patients (n = 15) who accessed primary care with colorectal cancer symptoms and were referred for further investigations. In 2021, we interviewed a wide range of healthcare professionals (n = 30) across the cancer care pathway and gathered national and local documents/guidelines regarding changes in colorectal cancer care. RESULTS: Changes with the potential to exacerbate inequalities in care, included: the move to remote consultations; changes in symptomatic triage, new COVID testing procedures/ways to access healthcare, changes in visitor policies and treatment (e.g., shorter course radiotherapy). Changes that improved patient access/convenience or the diagnostic process have the potential to reduce inequalities in care. DISCUSSION: Changes in healthcare delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic have the ongoing potential to exacerbate existing health inequalities due to changes in how patients are triaged, changes to diagnostic and disease management processes, reduced social support available to patients and potential over-reliance on digital first approaches. We provide several recommendations to help mitigate these harms, whilst harnessing the gains.

Back to the future? Lessons from the history of integrated child health services in England.

The UK has a long history of attempts to integrate child health services to improve outcomes, an ambition renewed in the recent The NHS Long Term Plan. It's therefore timely to review the history of integration to inform future initiatives. Key milestones include the Platt report (1959), Court report (1976), Sure Start (1999), National service framework (2004) and Facing the future report (2015). These stand against a backdrop of national NHS policy changes, with a myriad of local integration initiatives and research efforts in parallel. We suggest lessons for future integration initiatives: integration may support the quadruple aim; integration depends on addressing divides between primary and secondary care; workforce and funding challenges need to be resolved before integration can thrive; high-quality research and evaluation of integrated interventions is required; strong relationships between professional groups are key to integration; and integration can help address health inequalities.

Understanding the Political Skills and Behaviours for Leading the Implementation of Health Services Change: A Qualitative Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of change in health and care services is often complicated by organisational micro-politics. There are calls for those leading change to develop and utilise political skills and behaviours to understand and mediate such politics, but to date only limited research offers a developed empirical conceptualisation of the political skills and behaviours for leading health services change. METHODS: A qualitative interview study was undertaken with 66 healthcare leaders from the English National Health Service (NHS). Participants were sampled on the basis of their variable involvement in leading change processes, taking into account anticipated differences in career stage, leadership level and role, care sector, and professional backgrounds. Interpretative data analysis led to the development of five themes. RESULTS: Participants' accounts highlighted five overarching sets of political skills and behaviours: personal and inter-personal qualities relating to self-belief, resilience and the ability to adapt to different audiences; strategic thinking relating to the ability to understand the wider and local political landscape from which to develop realistic plans for change; communication skills for engaging and influencing stakeholders, especially for understanding and mediating stakeholders' competing interests; networks and networking in terms of access to resources, and building connections between stakeholders; and relational tactics for dealing with difficult individuals through more direct forms of negotiation and persuasion. CONCLUSION: The study offers further empirical insight the existing literature on healthcare organisational politics by describing and conceptualising the political skills and behaviours of implementing health services change.

How to Cost the Implementation of Major System Change for Economic Evaluations: Case Study Using Reconfigurations of Specialist Cancer Surgery in Part of London, England.

BACKGROUND: Studies have been published regarding the impact of major system change (MSC) on care quality and outcomes, but few evaluate implementation costs or include them in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). This is despite large potential costs of MSC: change planning, purchasing or repurposing assets, and staff time. Implementation costs can influence implementation decisions. We describe our framework and principles for costing MSC implementation and illustrate them using a case study. METHODS: We outlined MSC implementation stages and identified components, using a framework conceived during our work on MSC in stroke services. We present a case study of MSC of specialist surgery services for prostate, bladder, renal and oesophagogastric cancers, focusing on North Central and North East London and West Essex. Health economists collaborated with qualitative researchers, clinicians and managers, identifying key reconfiguration stages and expenditures. Data sources (n = approximately 100) included meeting minutes, interviews, and business cases. National Health Service (NHS) finance and service managers and clinicians were consulted. Using bottom-up costing, items were identified, and unit costs based on salaries, asset costs and consultancy fees assigned. Itemised costs were adjusted and summed. RESULTS: Cost components included options appraisal, bidding process, external review; stakeholder engagement events; planning/monitoring boards/meetings; and making the change: new assets, facilities, posts. Other considerations included hospital tariff changes; costs to patients; patient population; and lifetime of changes. Using the framework facilitated data identification and collection. The total adjusted implementation cost was estimated at £7.2 million, broken down as replacing robots (£4.0 million), consultancy fees (£1.9 million), staff time costs (£1.1 million) and other costs (£0.2 million). CONCLUSIONS: These principles can be used by funders, service providers and commissioners planning MSC and researchers evaluating MSC. Health economists should be involved early, alongside qualitative and health-service colleagues, as retrospective capture risks information loss. These analyses are challenging; many cost factors are difficult to identify, access and measure, and assumptions regarding lifetime of the changes are important. Including implementation costs in CEA might make MSC appear less cost effective, influencing future decisions. Future work will incorporate this implementation cost into the full CEAs of the London Cancer MSC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Using telemedicine to improve access, cost and quality of secondary care for people in prison in England: a hybrid type 2 implementation effectiveness study.

INTRODUCTION: People in prison tend to experience poorer health, access to healthcare services and health outcomes than the general population. Use of video consultations (telemedicine) has been proven effective at improving the access, cost and quality of secondary care for prisoners in the USA and Australia. Implementation and use in English prison settings has been limited to date despite political drivers for change. We plan to research the implementation of a new prison-hospital telemedicine model in an English county to understand what factors drive or hinder implementation and whether the model can improve healthcare outcomes as demonstrated in other contextual settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will undertake a hybrid type 2 implementation effectiveness study to gather evidence on both clinical and implementation outcomes. Data collection will be guided by the theoretical constructs of Normalisation Process Theory. We will prospectively collect data through: (1) prisoner/patient focus groups, interviews and questionnaires, (2) prison healthcare, hospital and wider prison staff interviews and questionnaires, (3) routine quality improvement and service evaluation data. Up to four prisons and three hospital settings in Surrey (England) will be included in the telemedicine research, dependent on their telemedicine readiness during the study period. Prisons proposed include male and female prisoners, remand (not yet sentenced) and sentenced individuals and different security categorisations. In addition, focus groups in five telemedicine naïve prisons will provide information on patient preconceptions and concerns surrounding telemedicine. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received National Health Service Research Ethics Committee, Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service National Research Committee and Health Research Authority approval. Dissemination of results will take place through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and existing health and justice networks.

Exploring public attitudes towards the new Faster Diagnosis Standard for cancer: a focus group study with the UK public.

BACKGROUND: The Faster Diagnosis Standard (FDS) is to be introduced in England in 2020. This standard is a new policy in which patients should have cancer ruled out or diagnosed within 28 days of referral. AIM: To explore public attitudes towards the FDS within the context of their recent referral experiences. DESIGN AND SETTING: Four 90-minute focus groups (two in Guildford, two in Bradford). METHOD: Participants aged >50 years without a current cancer diagnosis (N = 29), who had completed certain diagnostic tests, for example, ultrasound, and received results within the last 6 months were recruited. Age, education, and sex were evenly distributed across groups through purposive sampling. RESULTS: The largest cause of concern was the waiting process for obtaining test results. Most had experienced swift referral, and it was difficult for participants to understand how the new standard could impact upon time progressing through the system. Responsibility for meeting the standard was also a concern: participants did not see their own behaviours as a form of involvement. The GP's role was conceptualised by patients as communicating about their referral, establishing patients' preferences for information, and continued involvement at each stage of the referral process. The standard legitimised chasing for test results, but 28 days was considered too long. CONCLUSION: Patients should be asked what they would like to know about their referral. GPs should be more transparent about the referral process and the potential for a lack of clarity around next steps.

Educational differences in likelihood of attributing breast symptoms to cancer: a vignette-based study.

BACKGROUND: Stage at diagnosis of breast cancer varies by socio-economic status (SES), with lower SES associated with poorer survival. We investigated associations between SES (indexed by education), and the likelihood of attributing breast symptoms to breast cancer. METHOD: We conducted an online survey with 961 women (47-92 years) with variable educational levels. Two vignettes depicted familiar and unfamiliar breast changes (axillary lump and nipple rash). Without making breast cancer explicit, women were asked 'What do you think this […..] could be?' After the attribution question, women were asked to indicate their level of agreement with a cancer avoidance statement ('I would not want to know if I have breast cancer'). RESULTS: Women were more likely to mention cancer as a possible cause of an axillary lump (64%) compared with nipple rash (30%). In multivariable analysis, low and mid education were independently associated with being less likely to attribute a nipple rash to cancer (OR 0.51, 0.36-0.73 and OR 0.55, 0.40-0.77, respectively). For axillary lump, low education was associated with lower likelihood of mentioning cancer as a possible cause (OR 0.58, 0.41-0.83). Although cancer avoidance was also associated with lower education, the association between education and lower likelihood of making a cancer attribution was independent. CONCLUSION: Lower education was associated with lower likelihood of making cancer attributions for both symptoms, also after adjustment for cancer avoidance. Lower likelihood of considering cancer may delay symptomatic presentation and contribute to educational differences in stage at diagnosis. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Improving Olympic health services: what are the common health care planning issues?

INTRODUCTION: Due to their scale, the Olympic and Paralympic Games have the potential to place significant strain on local health services. The Sydney 2000, Athens 2004, Beijing 2008, Vancouver 2010, and London 2012 Olympic host cities shared their experiences by publishing reports describing health care arrangements. HYPOTHESIS: Olympic planning reports were compared to highlight best practices, to understand whether and which lessons are transferable, and to identify recurring health care planning issues for future hosts. METHODS: A structured, critical, qualitative analysis of all available Olympic health care reports was conducted. Recommendations and issues with implications for future Olympic host cities were extracted from each report. RESULTS: The six identified themes were: (1) the importance of early planning and relationship building: clarifying roles early to agree on responsibility and expectations, and engaging external and internal groups in the planning process from the start; (2) the development of appropriate medical provision: most health care needs are addressed inside Olympic venues rather than by hospitals which do not experience significant increases in attendance during the Games; (3) preparing for risks: gastrointestinal and food-borne illnesses are the most common communicable diseases experienced during the Games, but the incidence is still very low; (4) addressing the security risk: security arrangements are one of the most resource-demanding tasks; (5) managing administration and logistical issues: arranging staff permission to work at Games venues ("accreditation") is the most complex administrative task that is likely to encounter delays and errors; and (6) planning and assessing health legacy programs: no previous Games were able to demonstrate that their health legacy initiatives were effective. Although each report identified similar health care planning issues, subsequent Olympic host cities did not appear to have drawn on the transferable experiences of previous host cities. CONCLUSION: Repeated recommendations and lessons from host cities show that similar health care planning issues occur despite different health systems. To improve health care planning and delivery, host cities should pay heed to the specific planning issues that have been highlighted. It is also advisable to establish good communication with organizers from previous Games to learn first-hand about planning from previous hosts.