Diversity among health care leaders in Canada: a cross-sectional study of perceived gender and race.

BACKGROUND: Diverse health care leadership teams may improve health care experiences and outcomes for patients. We sought to explore the race and gender of hospital and health ministry executives in Canada and compare their diversity with that of the populations they serve. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included leaders of Canada's largest hospitals and all provincial and territorial health ministries. We included individuals listed on institutional websites as part of the leadership team if a name and photo were available. Six reviewers coded and analyzed the perceived race and gender of leaders, in duplicate. We compared the proportion of racialized health care leaders with the race demographics of the general population from the 2016 Canadian Census. RESULTS: We included 3056 leaders from 135 institutions, with reviewer concordance on gender for 3022 leaders and on race for 2946 leaders. Reviewers perceived 37 (47.4%) of 78 health ministry leaders as women, and fewer than 5 (< 7%) of 80 as racialized. In Alberta, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, provinces with a centralized hospital executive team, reviewers coded 36 (50.0%) of 72 leaders as women and 5 (7.1%) of 70 as racialized. In British Columbia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador, provinces with hospital leadership by region, reviewers perceived 120 (56.1%) of 214 leaders as women and 24 (11.5%) of 209 as racialized. In Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, where leadership teams exist at each hospital, reviewers perceived 1326 (49.9%) of 2658 leaders as women and 243 (9.2%) of 2633 as racialized. We calculated the representation gap between racialized executives and the racialized population as 14.5% for British Columbia, 27.5% for Manitoba, 20.7% for Ontario, 12.4% for Quebec, 7.6% for New Brunswick, 7.3% for Prince Edward Island and 11.6% for Newfoundland and Labrador. INTERPRETATION: In a study of more than 3000 health care leaders in Canada, gender parity was present, but racialized executives were substantially under-represented. This work should prompt health care institutions to increase racial diversity in leadership.

Defining ferritin clinical decision limits to improve diagnosis and treatment of iron deficiency: A modified Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency is highly prevalent worldwide and is an issue of health inequity. Despite its high prevalence, uncertainty on the clinical applicability and evidence-base of iron-related lab test cut-offs remains. In particular, current ferritin decision limits for the diagnosis of iron deficiency may not be clinically appropriate nor scientifically grounded. METHODS: A modified Delphi study was conducted with various clinical experts who manage iron deficiency across Canada. Statements about ferritin decision limits were generated by a steering committee, then distributed to the expert panel to vote on agreement with the aim of achieving consensus and acquiring feedback on the presented statements. Consensus was reached after two rounds, which was defined as 70% of experts rating their agreement for a statement as 5 or higher on a Likert scale from 1 to 7. RESULTS: Twenty-six clinical experts across 10 different specialties took part in the study. Consensus was achieved on 28 ferritin decision limit statements in various populations (including patients with multiple comorbid conditions, pediatric patients, and pregnant patients). For example, there was consensus that a ferritin <30 µg/L rules in iron deficiency in all adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) and warrants iron replacement therapy. CONCLUSION: Consensus statements generated through this study corresponded with current evidence-based literature and guidelines. These statements provide clarity to facilitate clinical decisions around the appropriate detection and management of iron deficiency.

Cardiac Stress Testing After Coronary Revascularization.

Unless prompted by symptoms or change in clinical status, the appropriate use criteria consider cardiac stress testing (CST) within 2 years of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and 5 years of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to be rarely appropriate. Little is known regarding use and yield of CST after PCI or CABG. We studied 39,648 patients treated with coronary revascularization (29,497 PCI; 10,151 CABG) between April 2004 and March 2012 in Alberta, Canada. Frequency of CST between 60 days and 2 years after revascularization was determined from linked provincial databases. Yield was defined as subsequent rates of coronary angiography and revascularization after CST. Post PCI, 14,195 (48.1%) patients underwent CST between 60 days and 2 years, while post CABG, 4,469 (44.0%) patients underwent CST. Compared with patients not undergoing CST, patients undergoing CST were more likely to be of younger age, reside in an urban area, have higher neighborhood median household income, but less medical comorbidities. Among PCI patients undergoing CST, 5.2% underwent subsequent coronary angiography, and 2.6% underwent repeat revascularization within 60 days of CST. Rates of coronary angiography and repeat revascularization post-CST among CABG patients were 3.6% and 1.1%, respectively. Approximately one-half of patients undergo CST within 2 years of PCI or CABG in Alberta, Canada. Yield of CST is low, with only 1 out of 38 tested post-PCI patients and 1 out of 91 tested post-CABG patients undergoing further revascularization. In conclusion, additional research is required to determine patients most likely to benefit from CST after revascularization.

Population-Based Study on Patterns of Cardiac Stress Testing After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate use criteria considers cardiac stress testing within 2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to be rarely appropriate, unless prompted by symptoms or change in clinical status. Little is known about the patterns of cardiac stress testing after PCI in the single-payer Canadian healthcare system, where mechanisms for reimbursement are different from the United States. METHODS AND RESULTS: Frequency and timing of cardiac stress testing within 2 years of PCI performed between April 2004 and March 2013 in Ontario, Canada, was determined from linked provincial databases. Subsequent rates of coronary angiography and revascularization after stress testing were ascertained. Of the 112 691 patients with PCI, 67 442 (59.8%) underwent at least 1 stress test, with 38 267 (34.0%) undergoing repeat stress testing (ie, >1 stress test) within 2 years. Patients who underwent stress testing were younger, had less medical comorbidities, were more likely to reside in urban areas, and had higher incomes. Spikes in incidence of repeat stress testing were observed at 3 to 4 months, 6 to 7 months, and 12 to 13 months after the prior stress test. Of those tested, only 5.9% underwent subsequent coronary angiography, and only 3.1% underwent repeat revascularization within 60 days of stress testing. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of all patients undergo cardiac stress testing within 2 years of PCI, with one third undergoing repeat stress tests. Only 1 of 30 tested patients underwent repeat revascularization. These findings reinforce the appropriate use criteria recommendations against routine stress testing after PCI. Further work is needed to aid with the selection of patients most likely to benefit from stress testing after PCI.