Addressing the Impacts of Racism on American Indian and Alaska Native Child Health.

The legacy of racism toward Native Americans is far-reaching. We will review the topic using the conceptual model of racism as a form of violence as it is inherent in racism, as are prejudice and power. Using the basic frameworks of racism as internalized, interpersonal, institutional, and structural, we will discuss the many types of racism affecting Native Americans today. Racism is the bedrock of generations of trauma experienced in Native communities. The generational/historical trauma of racism has led to epigenetic-level changes affecting Native American people today. We will cover the health impacts of racism and the many institutions built in racist frameworks that continue to perpetuate racism, such as family separation and child removal by child protective services, adverse policing, and disparate incarceration. These allow reflection on policies and the intentionality of racist structures. We will conclude with what can and should be done, particularly as clinicians who work within and adjacent to existing systems of oppression.

Identifying and Mitigating Disparities in Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections in Minoritized Racial, Ethnic, and Language Groups.

Importance: Although inequitable care due to racism and bias is well documented in health care, the impact on health care-associated infections is less understood. Objective: To determine whether disparities in first central catheter-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates existed for pediatric patients of minoritized racial, ethnic, and language groups and to evaluate the outcomes associated with quality improvement initiatives for addressing these disparities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study retrospectively examined outcomes of 8269 hospitalized patients with central catheters from October 1, 2012, to September 30, 2019, at a freestanding quaternary care children's hospital. Subsequent quality improvement interventions and follow-up were studied, excluding catheter days occurring after the outcome and episodes with catheters of indeterminate age through September 2022. Exposures: Patient self-reported (or parent/guardian-reported) race, ethnicity, and language for care as collected for hospital demographic purposes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Central catheter-associated bloodstream infection events identified by infection prevention surveillance according to National Healthcare Safety Network criteria were reported as events per 1000 central catheter days. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to analyze patient and central catheter characteristics, and interrupted time series was used to analyze quality improvement outcomes. Results: Unadjusted infection rates were higher for Black patients (2.8 per 1000 central catheter days) and patients who spoke a language other than English (LOE; 2.1 per 1000 central catheter days) compared with the overall population (1.5 per 1000 central catheter days). Proportional hazard regression included 225 674 catheter days with 316 infections and represented 8269 patients. A total of 282 patients (3.4%) experienced a CLABSI (mean [IQR] age, 1.34 [0.07-8.83] years; female, 122 [43.3%]; male, 160 [56.7%]; English-speaking, 236 [83.7%]; LOE, 46 [16.3%]; American Indian or Alaska Native, 3 [1.1%]; Asian, 14 [5.0%]; Black, 26 [9.2%]; Hispanic, 61 [21.6%]; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 4 [1.4%]; White, 139 [49.3%]; ≥2 races, 14 [5.0%]; unknown race and ethnicity or refused to answer, 15 [5.3%]). In the adjusted model, a higher hazard ratio (HR) was observed for Black patients (adjusted HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.6; P = .002) and patients who spoke an LOE (adjusted HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3; P = .01). Following quality improvement interventions, infection rates in both subgroups showed statistically significant level changes (Black patients: -1.77; 95% CI, -3.39 to -0.15; patients speaking an LOE: -1.25; 95% CI, -2.23 to -0.27). Conclusions and Relevance: The study's findings show disparities in CLABSI rates for Black patients and patients who speak an LOE that persisted after adjusting for known risk factors, suggesting that systemic racism and bias may play a role in inequitable hospital care for hospital-acquired infections. Stratifying outcomes to assess for disparities prior to quality improvement efforts may inform targeted interventions to improve equity.

Disparities in Pediatric Specialty Referral Scheduling and Completion.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate differences in scheduled and completed specialty referrals by race, ethnicity, language for care, and insurance type. STUDY DESIGN: We studied a retrospective cohort of 38 334 specialty referrals to a large children's hospital between March 2019 and March 2021. We included referrals for patients with primary care clinics within 5 miles of the hospital. We examined whether the odds of and time to scheduled and completed referrals differed by patient sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Of all referrals, 62% were scheduled and 54% were completed. Referral completion rates were lower for patients with Black race (45%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander race (48%), Spanish language (49%), and public insurance (47%). Odds of scheduled and completed referral were lower for Asian (aOR scheduled: 0.94, [95% CI: 0.89, 0.99]; aOR completed: 0.92 [0.87, 0.97]), Black (aOR scheduled: 0.86 [0.79, 0.94]; aOR completed: 0.80 [0.73, 0.87]), and publicly insured patients (aOR scheduled: 0.71 [0.66, 0.75]; aOR completed: 0.70 [0.66, 0.75]). Time to scheduled and completed referral was longer for Black (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] scheduled: 0.93 [0.88, 0.98]; aHR completed: 0.93 [0.87, 0.99]) and publicly insured patients (aHR scheduled: 0.85 [0.82, 0.88]; aHR completed: 0.84 [0.80, 0.87]) and families with a language other than English (aHR scheduled: 0.66 [0.62, 0.70]; aHR completed: 0.92 [0.86, 0.99]). CONCLUSIONS: Within a geographically homogenous pediatric population, the odds and time to scheduled and completed specialty referrals differed by sociodemographic characteristics, suggesting the effects of discrimination. To improve access equity, health care organizations need clear and consistent referral workflows and more comprehensive metrics for access.

Gender Discrimination and Reporting Experiences among Academic Pediatric Faculty: A Qualitative, Single-institution Study.

OBJECTIVE: Gender-harassment is well-described in academic medicine, including pediatrics. We explored academic pediatricians' qualitative descriptions of: 1) workplace gender-harassment; 2) its professional and emotional tolls; 3) barriers to and outcomes of reporting gender-harassment; and 4) tools to intervene. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, anonymous, survey-based study within a single, large pediatrics department. Surveys included demographic items, validated measures to assess prevalence of gender-harassment, and optional, free-text boxes to elaborate. Here, we present the directed content analyses of free-text responses. Two trained qualitative researchers coded participant comments to identify types of gender-harassment, its impact, and participants' experiences reporting it. Final agreement between coders was outstanding (Kappa>0.9). A secondary, inductive analysis illustrated the emotional burdens of and opportunities to interrupt gender-harassment. RESULTS: Of 524 total faculty, 290 (55%) completed the survey and 144 (27% of total, 50% of survey-respondents) provided text-responses. This sub-cohort was predominantly white women >5 years on-faculty. Compared to the full cohort, sub-cohort participants had more commonly witnessed/experienced workplace-harassment; 92% of sub-cohort women and 52% of men endorsed fear of reporting it. Respondents described harassment by institutional staff (24% of respondents), patients/families (35%), colleagues (50%), supervisors/leadership (50%), and the system (63%). Women used stronger emotional descriptors than men (ie, "humiliated" vs "uncomfortable"). Only 19% of women (and no men) had reported witnessed/experienced harassment; 24% of those described a negative consequence and 95% noted that no changes were made thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: This single-center study suggests gender-harassment in academic pediatrics is common. Faculty feel fear and futility reporting it.

Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in a Department of Pediatrics.

The last substantial description of gender discrimination and harassment described in the journal Pediatrics was in 2019. It is unclear whether the field has made progress toward its goal of equity. We aimed to describe: (1) the recent gender-equity climate according to women and men faculty in the department of pediatrics at a single, large academic center, and (2) institutional efforts to address persistent gender discrimination and harassment. In late 2020, we distributed an anonymous survey to all department faculty that included demographic data, a modified version of the Overt Gender Discrimination at Work Scale, questions about experiences/witnessed discriminatory treatment and sexual harassment, and if those experiences negatively affected career advancement. Of 524 pediatrics faculty, 290 (55%) responded. Compared with men, women more commonly reported gender discrimination (50% vs. 4%, P < .01) and that their gender negatively affected their career advancement (50% vs 9%, P < .01). More than 50% of women reported discriminatory treatment at least annually and 38% recognized specific sexist statements; only 4% and 17% of men reported the same (P < .01 for both). We concluded that a disproportionately low number of male faculty recognized the harassment female faculty experienced. In the 18 months since, our department and university have made efforts to improve salary equity and parity in leadership representation, created an anonymous bias-reporting portal, mandated bias training, and implemented new benchmarks of "professionalism" that focus on diversity. Although we acknowledge that culture change will take time, we hope our lessons learned help promote gender equity in pediatrics more broadly.

Association Between Language Use and ICU Transfer and Serious Adverse Events in Hospitalized Pediatric Patients Who Experience Rapid Response Activation.

Background: Hospitalized patients and caregivers who use a language other than English have worse health outcomes, including longer length of stay, more frequent readmissions, and increased rates of in-hospital adverse events. Children who experience clinical deterioration (as measured by a Rapid Response Team event) during a hospitalization are at increased risk for adverse events and mortality. Methods: We describe the results of a retrospective cohort study using hospital records at a free-standing, quaternary children's hospital, to examine the association of language of care with outcomes (transfer to intensive care, adverse event, mortality prior to discharge) following Rapid Response Team event, and whether increased interpreter use among patients who use a language other than English is associated with improved outcomes following Rapid Response Team event. Results: In adjusted models, Rapid Response Team events for patients who use a language other than English were associated with higher transfer rates to intensive care (RR 1.1, 95% CI 1.01, 1.21), but not with adverse event or mortality. Among patients who use a language other than English, use of 1-2 interpreted sessions per day was associated with lower transfer rates to intensive care compared to use of less than one interpreted session per day (RR 0.79, 95% 0.66, 0.95). Conclusion: Rapid Response Team events for hospitalized children of families who use a language other than English are more often followed by transfer to intensive care, compared with Rapid Response Team events for children of families who use English. Improved communication with increased interpreter use for hospitalized children who use a language other than English may lead to improvements in Rapid Response Team outcomes.

Addressing racism in the healthcare encounter: The role of clinical ethics consultants.

Justice is a core principle in bioethics, and a fair opportunity to achieve health is central to this principle. Racism and other forms of prejudice, discrimination, or bias directed against people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group are known contributors to health inequity, defined as unjust differences in health or access to care. Though hospital-based ethics committees and consultation services routinely address issues of justice that arise in the course of patient care, there is variability in whether and how racism and other causes of health inequities are addressed. In this paper, we describe a novel structure and process for addressing health equity within clinical ethics consultation. In addition, we discuss the barriers and challenges to its success, many of which are rooted in the identities, norms and assumptions that underlie traditional clinical ethics consultation. We offer pragmatic recommendations and conclude with unresolved questions that remain as we work to adapt the structure of a clinical ethics consultation service to improve attention to issues of health equity and promote anti-racism in patient care and institutional policy.

American Indian/Alaska Native Child Health and Poverty.

One in three American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) children live in poverty. This rate is higher in some reservation communities. The alarming rates of physical, mental, and social health inequities (eg, poverty) experienced by AI/AN children are symptoms of genocide, a legacy of inhumane Federal Indian policy, and ongoing structural violence. The chronically underfunded Indian Health Service (IHS) is just one example where AI/AN children are not universally guaranteed equitable health care or opportunity to thrive. Poverty is highly predictive of educational achievement, employment opportunities, violence, and ultimately health outcomes. COVID-19 has not only exacerbated physical and mental health inequities experienced by AI/AN communities, but has also intensified the economic consequences of inequity. Thus, it is vital to advocate for programs and policies that are evidence based, incorporate cultural ways of knowing, and dismantle structurally racist policies.

Caring for American Indian and Alaska Native Children and Adolescents.

American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations have substantial health inequities, and most of their disease entities begin in childhood. In addition, AI/AN children and adolescents have excessive disease rates compared with the general pediatric population. Because of this, providers of pediatric care are in a unique position not only to attenuate disease incidence during childhood but also to improve the health status of this special population as a whole. This policy statement examines the inequitable disease burden observed in AI/AN youth, with a focus on toxic stress, mental health, and issues related to suicide and substance use disorder, risk of and exposure to injury and violence in childhood, obesity and obesity-related cardiovascular risk factors and disease, foster care, and the intersection of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and Two-Spirit and AI/AN youth. Opportunities for advocacy in policy making also are presented.

Developing Resources for American Indian/Alaska Native Transgender and Two-Spirit Youth, Their Relatives, and Healthcare Providers.

American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) youth disproportionately face barriers accessing healthcare, including lack of access to culturally specific resources. This article details the creation of a culturally-specific Toolkit for AI/AN transgender and Two-Spirit youth, their relatives, and their healthcare providers across the United States. The Toolkit aims to 1) deliver culturally grounded resources to youth with diverse gender identities, 2) provide resources for families, and 3) increase healthcare provider awareness. A culturally appropriate Toolkit, "Celebrating Our Magic," was created from continual engagement with community partners over a 6-month period to address identified needs. The Toolkit has been shared regionally with partners who helped with its creation and nationally with Indian Health Service, Tribal, and Urban clinics serving AI/AN youth. This Toolkit creation process could be applied to manuals or guides for work in other underserved communities.

Shedding of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus among health care personnel, Seattle, Washington, USA.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that health care personnel (HCP) infected with pandemic influenza (H1N1) 2009 virus not work until 24 hours after fever subsides without the use of antipyretics. During an influenza outbreak, we examined the association between viral shedding and fever among infected HCP. Participants recorded temperatures daily and provided nasal wash specimens for 2 weeks after symptom onset. Specimens were tested by using PCR and culture. When they met CDC criteria for returning to work, 12 of 16 HCP (75%) (95% confidence interval 48%-93%) had virus detected by PCR, and 9 (56%) (95% confidence interval 30%-80%) had virus detected by culture. Fever was not associated with shedding duration (p = 0.65). HCP might shed virus even when meeting CDC exclusion guidelines. Further research is needed to clarify the association between viral shedding, symptoms, and infectiousness.