Patient-reported outcomes and experiences in the transition of undocumented patients from emergency to scheduled hemodialysis.

Undocumented immigrants with kidney failure can only access dialysis after presenting critically ill to an emergency department in most states within the United States. How access to scheduled dialysis might improve or harm patient experience is currently unknown. To clarify this, we assessed patient reported outcomes and experiences of undocumented patients who transitioned from emergency to scheduled dialysis. Pre-post intervention interviews were conducted using a mixed-methods study (questionnaires and interviews) in a Colorado hospital. Measures included the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form-36 (KDQOL SF-36), Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, Trust in Physician Scale, and CHOICE Satisfaction Scale. Interviews were evaluated using thematic analysis. Thirty patients participated, and 26 completed the post-transition interview (two participants died, two did not transition to scheduled dialysis). Following transition, patients significantly improved on all five KDQOL SF-36 subscales including 116% for burden of kidney disease, 42% for kidney disease effects, 27% for symptoms/problems, 23% for physical and 13% for mental health composite. Patients reported significant improvement in seven symptoms consisting of 100% for nausea, 57% for pain, 94% for appetite and shortness of breath, 87% for anxiety, 86% for depression, 65% for tiredness, and 60% for drowsiness. Trust and satisfaction with care were unchanged. Five identified themes corroborated patient-reported outcomes but indicated continuing challenges associated with anxiety about navigating changes in care, increased burden on family and employers, relief in receiving consistent care, immediate and remarkable health gains, and restoring hope and humanity. Thus, providing healthcare access to standard dialysis for undocumented immigrants improved quality of life and mitigated debilitating symptoms but brought new challenges in healthcare navigation as well as family burden and work.

Increasing access to family planning services among women receiving medications for opioid use disorder: A pilot randomized trial examining a peer-led navigation intervention.

OBJECTIVE: High rates of unintended pregnancy occur among women with opioid use disorder (OUD). OUD treatment settings may provide an ideal opportunity to address the family planning needs of patients. However, few studies have rigorously evaluated interventions designed to address family planning needs in the OUD treatment setting. This study assessed the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a peer-led navigation intervention designed to educate and link women receiving medications for OUD to family planning services. METHODS: The study recruited women from four OUD treatment programs in Denver, Colorado, to participate in a pilot randomized controlled trial from March 2018 to February 2019. Eligible participants were English-speaking adult females who were neither pregnant nor desiring a pregnancy and who were not using a long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) method. Participants completed a baseline survey, and the study randomized them to receive a two-session, peer-led family planning navigation intervention or usual care. The study assessed feasibility by participant engagement in the intervention. The study used follow-up self-report surveys and electronic health record data to assess intervention acceptability and intervention efficacy for the primary outcomes of a family planning visit and use of a LARC method. RESULTS: The study enrolled 119 women who were randomized to the Sexual Health Initiative for Navigation and Empowerment (SHINE) peer-led navigation intervention (n = 56) or usual care (n = 63). The average age was 32 (SD = 6.4); 76% were receiving methadone, 24% were receiving buprenorphine and 19% reported a treatment provider had ever discussed family planning with them. Most had a previous pregnancy (82%) and of these, 93% reported an unplanned pregnancy. Among intervention participants, 93% completed the first navigation session, 90% felt that intervention topics were important, 76% indicated that the information was new, and 82% found working with a peer helpful. At six months postbaseline, significantly more (p = 0.01) intervention participants (36%) received a family planning visit compared to control participants (14%). There was no between-group difference on use of LARC methods. CONCLUSIONS: A peer-led family planning navigation intervention was feasible to implement, acceptable to participants, and showed evidence of preliminary efficacy. This model may be an effective and potentially sustainable approach to support the family planning needs of women in treatment for OUD.

Frontline interdisciplinary clinician perspectives on caring for patients with COVID-19: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the drivers of distress and motivations faced by interdisciplinary clinicians who were on the frontline caring for patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: 50 semistructured interviews. Transcripts were analysed using qualitative thematic analysis. SETTING: A safety-net hospital in Denver, Colorado. PARTICIPANTS: Interdisciplinary frontline clinicians including physicians, advance practice providers, nurses, respiratory therapists and paramedics providing inpatient hospital care to patients hospitalised for COVID-19. RESULTS: Fifty clinicians (32 women and 18 men) participated. Five themes with respective subthemes (in parentheses) were identified: depersonalisation and barriers to care (impeding rapport and compassion, focusing on infection risk at the expense of high-quality care, grief from witnessing patients suffer in isolation), powerless in uncertainty (inescapable awareness of personal risk, therapeutic doubt in a void of evidence, confronting ethical dilemmas, struggling with dynamic and unfamiliar challenges), overwhelmed and exhausted (burden of personal protective equipment (PPE), information overload and confusion, overstretched by additional responsibilities at work, compounded by personal life stressors, feeling vulnerable and dispensable, compassion fatigue, distress from the disproportionate impact on socially oppressed communities), bolstering morale and confidence (motivated by community and family support, equipped with data), and driven by moral duty (responsibility to patient care and community, collegial solidarity and collaboration, contributing to the greater good). CONCLUSION: Frontline clinicians reported distress due to the challenges of PPE, uncertainty and powerlessness, new responsibilities at work and home, losing control of their schedules, grief from witnessing patients suffer in isolation and witnessing healthcare disparities exacerbated by this pandemic. Clinicians feel supported by their colleagues, families, and community and were driven by a sense of moral duty. Healthcare system should adopt strategies to minimise distress faced by interdisciplinary clinicians on the frontline of COVID-19.

Experiences of Latinx Individuals Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Qualitative Study.

Importance: Latinx individuals, particularly immigrants, are at higher risk than non-Latinx White individuals of contracting and dying from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Little is known about Latinx experiences with COVID-19 infection and treatment. Objective: To describe the experiences of Latinx individuals who were hospitalized with and survived COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The qualitative study used semistructured phone interviews of 60 Latinx adults who survived a COVID-19 hospitalization in public hospitals in San Francisco, California, and Denver, Colorado, from March 2020 to July 2020. Transcripts were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis. Data analysis was conducted from May 2020 to September 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Themes and subthemes that reflected patient experiences. Results: Sixty people (24 women and 36 men; mean [SD] age, 48 [12] years) participated. All lived in low-income areas, 47 participants (78%) had more than 4 people in the home, and most (44 participants [73%]) were essential workers. Four participants (9%) could work from home, 12 (20%) had paid sick leave, and 21 (35%) lost their job because of COVID-19. We identified 5 themes (and subthemes) with public health and clinical care implications: COVID-19 was a distant and secondary threat (invincibility, misinformation and disbelief, ingrained social norms); COVID-19 was a compounder of disadvantage (fear of unemployment and eviction, lack of safeguards for undocumented immigrants, inability to protect self from COVID-19, and high-density housing); reluctance to seek medical care (worry about health care costs, concerned about ability to access care if uninsured or undocumented, undocumented immigrants fear deportation); health care system interactions (social isolation and change in hospital procedures, appreciation for clinicians and language access, and discharge with insufficient resources or clinical information); and faith and community resiliency (spirituality, Latinx COVID-19 advocates). Conclusions and Relevance: In interviews, Latinx patients with COVID-19 who survived hospitalization described initial disease misinformation and economic and immigration fears as having driven exposure and delays in presentation. To confront COVID-19 as a compounder of social disadvantage, public health authorities should mitigate COVID-19-related misinformation, immigration fears, and challenges to health care access, as well as create policies that provide work protection and address economic disadvantages.