Leveraging telemedicine in gastroenterology and hepatology: a narrative review.

Background and Objective: Over the years, telemedicine has played a prominent role in delivering healthcare to patients. Due to its flexibility and many benefits, telemedicine confers physicians the ability to guide and promote medical care remotely. The advent of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the landscape of medicine and has accelerated the usage of digital and remote healthcare systems for clinical care. Herein, we provide an overview of telemedicine, its applications in managing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), celiac disease (CD), and liver diseases, its advantages and limitations, and its use in educating the next generation of gastroenterologists. Methods: We conducted a review of scientific articles published in PubMed and Google Scholar. Articles were selected based on the search terms included in the search strategy summary. The language of the articles was restricted to English only. Key Content and Findings: We report that telemedicine has the potential to streamline and improve patient care in gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology while also limiting health care expenses. Additionally, we noted the importance of tele-education for training the next generation of physicians who intend on practicing in rural settings. Furthermore, we identified barriers to telemedicine care that exacerbate health inequities and potential solutions to achieving digital health equity. Lastly, we briefly discuss the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in remote patient monitoring. Conclusions: Although telemedicine has existed for many decades, over the past decade there have been many advancements in telemedicine applications in GI and hepatology. Despite its broad benefits, further research needs to be done to alleviate barriers to telemedicine care.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in gastroenterology and hepatology: a survey of where we stand.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In the setting of increasing attention to representation in medicine, we aimed to assess current perspectives of racial and ethnic workforce diversity and health care disparities among gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology professionals in the United States. METHODS: We developed and administered a 33-item electronic cross-sectional survey to members of 5 national GI and hepatology societies. Survey items were organized into thematic modules and solicited perspectives on racial and ethnic workforce diversity, health care disparities in GI and hepatology, and potential interventions to enhance workforce diversity and improve health equity. RESULTS: Of the 1219 survey participants, 62.3% were male, 48.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 19.9% were from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. The most frequently reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology were insufficient representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups in the education and training pipeline (n = 431 [35.4%]), in professional leadership (n = 340 [27.9%]), and among practicing GI and hepatology professionals (n = 324 [26.6%]). Suggested interventions were to increase career mentorship opportunities (n = 545 [44.7%]), medical student opportunities (n = 520 [42.7%]), and program and professional society leadership roles for underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups (n = 473 [38.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: Our survey explored imperative and timely perspectives on racial and ethnic representation and health equity among professionals in GI and hepatology. The findings should inform future interventions to address workforce diversity and establish priorities toward improving health equity, ultimately serving as a springboard for professional societies, academic institutions, and other organizations that aim to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Gastroenterology and Hepatology: A Survey of Where We Stand.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In the setting of increasing attention to representation in medicine, we aimed to assess current perspectives of racial and ethnic workforce diversity and health care disparities among gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology professionals in the United States. METHODS: We developed and administered a 33-item electronic cross-sectional survey to members of 5 national GI and hepatology societies. Survey items were organized into thematic modules and solicited perspectives on racial and ethnic workforce diversity, health care disparities in GI and hepatology, and potential interventions to enhance workforce diversity and improve health equity. RESULTS: Of the 1219 survey participants, 62.3% were male, 48.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 19.9% were from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. The most frequently reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology were insufficient representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups in the education and training pipeline (n = 431 [35.4%]), in professional leadership (n = 340 [27.9%]), and among practicing GI and hepatology professionals (n = 324 [26.6%]). Suggested interventions were to increase career mentorship opportunities (n = 545 [44.7%]), medical student opportunities (n = 520 [42.7%]), and program and professional society leadership roles for underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups (n = 473 [38.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: Our survey explored imperative and timely perspectives on racial and ethnic representation and health equity among professionals in GI and hepatology. The findings should inform future interventions to address workforce diversity and establish priorities toward improving health equity, ultimately serving as a springboard for professional societies, academic institutions, and other organizations that aim to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in gastroenterology and hepatology: A survey of where we stand.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the setting of increasing attention to representation in medicine, we aimed to assess current perspectives of racial and ethnic workforce diversity and health care disparities among gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology professionals in the United States. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We developed and administered a 33-item electronic cross-sectional survey to members of five national GI and hepatology societies. Survey items were organized into thematic modules and solicited perspectives on racial and ethnic workforce diversity, health care disparities in GI and hepatology, and potential interventions to enhance workforce diversity and improve health equity. Of the 1219 survey participants, 62.3% were male, 48.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 19.9% were from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. The most frequently reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology were insufficient representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups in the education and training pipeline (n = 431 [35.4%]), in professional leadership (n = 340 [27.9%]), and among practicing GI and hepatology professionals (n = 324 [26.6%]). Suggested interventions were to increase career mentorship opportunities (n = 545 [44.7%]), medical student opportunities (n = 520 [42.7%]), and program and professional society leadership roles for underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups (n = 473 [38.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: Our survey explored imperative and timely perspectives on racial and ethnic representation and health equity among professionals in GI and hepatology. The findings should inform future interventions to address workforce diversity and establish priorities toward improving health equity, ultimately serving as a springboard for professional societies, academic institutions, and other organizations that aim to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field.

Gender, Race, and Ethnicity Representation Among Gastroenterologists: A Review of Recent Trends.

Diversity in medicine and the gastroenterology (GI) subspecialty is a topic warranting attention, especially in light of a number of recent incidents highlighting the persistence of racial, ethnic, and gender injustice in our nation. Insight into this topic is important insofar as the multitude of racial, ethnic, and gender backgrounds comprising the national patient population should be reflected, to the degree possible, by the providers serving it. Inclusion becomes particularly imperative because the quality of health care and health research and bridging disparities may be closely linked to adequate representation among healthcare providers. Despite the urgency of this topic, there is a paucity of data examining trends in gender and racial/ethnic diversity among medical professionals within the field of GI. In this narrative review, we examine how ethnoracial and gender representation has changed over time at critical points along the educational, training, and career pathways in GI.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Gastroenterology and Hepatology: A Survey of Where We Stand.

INTRODUCTION: In the setting of increasing attention to representation in medicine, we aimed to assess current perspectives of racial and ethnic workforce diversity and health care disparities among gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology professionals in the United States. METHODS: We developed and administered a 33-item electronic cross-sectional survey to members of 5 national GI and hepatology societies. Survey items were organized into thematic modules and solicited perspectives on racial and ethnic workforce diversity, health care disparities in GI and hepatology, and potential interventions to enhance workforce diversity and improve health equity. RESULTS: Of the 1,219 survey participants, 62.3% were male, 48.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 19.9% were from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. The most frequently reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology were insufficient representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups in the education and training pipeline (n = 431 [35.4%]), in professional leadership (n = 340 [27.9%]), and among practicing GI and hepatology professionals (n = 324 [26.6%]). Suggested interventions were to increase career mentorship opportunities (n = 545 [44.7%]), medical student opportunities (n = 520 [42.7%]), and program and professional society leadership roles for underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups (n = 473 [38.8%]). DISCUSSION: Our survey explored imperative and timely perspectives on racial and ethnic representation and health equity among professionals in GI and hepatology. The findings should inform future interventions to address workforce diversity and establish priorities toward improving health equity, ultimately serving as a springboard for professional societies, academic institutions, and other organizations that aim to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field.

Medical professional liability in gastroenterology: definitions, trends, risk factors, provider behaviors, and implications.

Introduction: Medical professional liability (MPL) is a notable concern for many clinicians, especially in procedure-intensive specialties such as gastroenterology (GI). Comprehensive understanding of the basis for MPL claims can improve gastroenterologists' practice, lower MPL risk, and improve the overall patient care experience. This is particularly relevant in the setting of the increasing average compensation per paid GI-related MPL claim, and evolving healthcare delivery patterns and regulations.Areas Covered: MPL claims are generally grounded in the concept of negligence, a broad term that may apply to situations involving medical errors, ameliorable adverse events, inadequate informed consent and/or refusal, and numerous others. Though often not directly discussed in GI training or thereafter, there are various mechanisms and behaviors that can alter (decrease or increase) MPL risk. Additional dimensions of MPL include telemedicine, social media, and vicarious liability. We discuss these topics as well as takeaways to mitigate risk, thus reducing unnecessary clinician anxiety, promoting professional development, and optimizing healthcare outcomes.Expert Opinion: MPL risk is modifiable. Strong provider-patient relationships, through effective communication, patient reassurance, and enhanced informed consent, decrease risk, as does thorough documentation. Conversely, provider 'defensive' mechanisms intended to decrease MPL risk, including assurance and avoidance behaviors, may paradoxically increase it.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Does Not Impact Mortality but Increases Length of Hospitalization in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) have been associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events. We aimed to investigate the outcomes of myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with IBD. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study utilizing data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from the years 1998 to 2010. ICD-9-CM codes were used to identify patients with Crohn's disease (CD) (555.X), ulcerative colitis (UC) (556.X), and acute MI (410.X). Outcomes in patients with MI with and without IBD were compared. Univariate analysis was performed. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the effect of UC and CD on in-hospital MI mortality after adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 2,629,161 MI, 3,607 UC and 3784 CD patients were analyzed. UC (odds ratio [OR], 1.12; 95% CI 0.98-1.29) and CD (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.86-1.15) did not affect in-hospital mortality in patients with MI. There was no difference between in-hospital mortality in patients with MI with or without UC (7.75% vs. 7.05%; p = 0.25) or in patients with MI with or without CD (6.50% vs. 6.59%; p = 0.87). The length of stay (LOS) was higher in IBD patients and total charges were statistically higher in patients with UC as compared to non-IBD patients ($65,182 vs. $53,542; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that IBD does not impact in-hospital mortality from MI. However, patients with MI with IBD have longer LOS. Patients with UC have higher total hospitalization charges than patients with MI without IBD. Further prospective studies are needed to assess the outcomes of MI in IBD patients.

In-patient outcomes of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Immune Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Nationwide Study.

The impact of underlying immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) is unclear. Hematopoietic cell transplantation co-morbidity index (HCT-CI) is gaining acceptance as a reliable clinical method to score pre-transplant co-morbidities. Higher HCT-CI from a co-morbid IMID implies higher NRM. However, HCT-CI integrates many IMIDs with different pathogenesis and treatment together which may lead to spurious results. We performed a cross-sectional study using Nationwide Inpatient Sample dataset from 1998 to 2011 to compare the outcomes of HSCT in patients with different co-morbid IMIDs with patients without any co-morbid IMIDs. In both our multivariate and stringent matched-pair analysis, ulcerative colitis (UC) was associated with increased mortality while rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis were associated with lower mortality as compared to no IMID group. Furthermore, in allogeneic HSCT subgroup, UC was associated with higher mortality and psoriasis was associated with lower mortality. In conclusion, we found that depending on the type of HSCT, each IMID has a different impact on outcomes of HSCT. Furthermore, UC patients had increased mortality if they had primary sclerosing cholangitis and had a higher risk of opportunistic infections like tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus suggesting the need for increased vigilance in this cohort.