Challenges with non-descriptive compliance labeling of end-stage renal disease patients in accessibility for renal transplantation.

Non-descriptive and convenient labels are uninformative and unfairly project blame onto patients. The language clinicians use in the Electronic Medical Record, research, and clinical settings shapes biases and subsequent behaviors of all providers involved in the enterprise of transplantation. Terminology such as noncompliant and nonadherent serve as a reason for waitlist inactivation and limit access to life-saving transplantation. These labels fail to capture all the circumstances surrounding a patient's inability to follow their care regimen, trivialize social determinants of health variables, and bring unsubstantiated subjectivity into decisions regarding organ allocation. Furthermore, insufficient Medicare coverage has forced patients to ration or stop taking medication, leading to allograft failure and their subsequent diagnosis of noncompliant. We argue that perpetuating non-descriptive language adds little substantive information, increases subjectivity to the organ allocation process, and plays a major role in reduced access to transplantation. For patients with existing barriers to care, such as racial/ethnic minorities, these effects may be even more drastic. Transplant committees must ensure thorough documentation to correctly encapsulate the entirety of a patient's position and give voice to an already vulnerable population.

Pretransplant malignancy in pediatrics is not a risk factor for renal graft failure.

BACKGROUND: In adults, pretransplant malignancy (PTM) negatively impacts patient survival due to immunosuppression regimens influencing post-transplantation tumor growth. Few reports investigate the outcomes of pediatric kidney transplantation with PTM. We compare transplant outcomes for pediatric patients with PTM to matched controls, including cancer types extending beyond Wilms tumor. METHODS: The United Network of Organ Sharing Database was queried to identify pediatric transplant recipients with histories of PTM. All PTM patients were matched to non-PTM patients, at a 1:1 ratio, with 0.001 match tolerance. Matching variables included transplant year, recipient age, recipient gender, recipient race, donor type, and prior transplant. Death-censored graft and patient survival were analyzed. All statistics were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: After propensity matching, 285 PTM and 285 non-PTM patients were identified, with transplant dates from 1990 to 2020. Median Kidney Donor Profile Index values were comparable between cohorts, 17% and 12%, respectively (p = .065). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that PTM patients did not have a significantly different rate of death-censored graft failure, compared to the non-PTM group [HR 0.76; 95% CI (0.54-1.1)]. There was also no difference in the overall survival between the two groups of patients [HR 1.1; 95% CI (0.66-2.0)]. CONCLUSION: A history of pediatric malignancy has minimal independent effect on their post-transplant survival. Additionally, pediatric patients with PTM demonstrated equivalent rates of graft survival. Thus, in contrast to adults, renal failure in children with history of pediatric malignancies should not be considered a complicating factor for renal transplantation.

Cancer screening and management in the transgender population: Review of literature and special considerations for gender affirmation surgery.

BACKGROUND: Literature focused on cancer screening and management is lacking in the transgender population. AIM: To action to increase contributions to the scientific literature that drives the creation of cancer screening and management protocols for transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) patients. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of PubMed on January 5th, 2022, with the following terms: "TGNC", OR "transgender", OR "gender non-conforming", OR "gender nonbinary" AND "cancer screening", AND "breast cancer", AND "cervical cancer", AND "uterine cancer", AND "ovarian cancer", AND "prostate cancer", AND "testicular cancer", AND "surveillance", AND "follow-up", AND "management". 70 unique publications were used. The findings are discussed under "Screening" and "Management" categories. RESULTS: Screening: Current cancer screening recommendations default to cis-gender protocols. However, long-term gender-affirming hormone therapy and loss to follow-up from the gender-specific specialties contribute to a higher risk for cancer development and possible delayed detection. The only known screening guidelines made specifically for this population are from the American College of Radiology for breast cancer. Management: Prior to undergoing Gender Affirmation Surgery (GAS), discussion should address cancer screening and management in the organs remaining in situ. Cancer treatment in this population requires consideration for chemotherapy, radiation, surgery and/or reconstruction. Modification of hormone therapy is decided on a case-by-case basis. The use of prophylactic vs aesthetic techniques in surgery is still debated. CONCLUSION: When assessing transgender individuals for GAS, a discussion on the future oncologic risk of the sex-specific organs remaining in situ is essential. Cancer management in this population requires a multidisciplinary approach while the care should be highly individualized with considerations to social, medical, surgical and gender affirming surgery related specifications. Special considerations have to be made during planning for GAS as surgery will alter the anatomy and may render the organ difficult to sample for screening purposes. A discussion with the patient regarding the oncologic risk of remaining organs is imperative prior to GAS. Other special considerations to screening such as the conscious or unconscious will to unassociated with their remaining organs is also a key point to address. We currently lack high quality studies pertinent to the cancer topic in the gender affirmation literature. Further research is required to ensure more comprehensive and individualized care for this population.

Racial Disparity in Gender Affirming Surgery: A Comparative Study on Plastic Surgeon Social Media Use.

In the past 5 years, social media use among plastic surgeons has grown to become a common modality used to promote one's practice. However, surgeons lack the necessary ethical training to understand how their published content impacts patient opinions and behavior. Social media trends among plastic surgeons may contribute to the reduced rate of Black (non-White) patients accessing gender affirming surgery. Methods: In total, 250 gender affirming surgeons and 51,698 individual posts from social media platform, Instagram, were manually extracted and analyzed. Posts were assessed for inclusion and categorized by the subject's skin color (White versus non-White) using the Fitzpatrick scale. Results: Of the 3101 included posts, 375 (12.1%) portrayed non-White subjects. Of the 56 included surgeons, White surgeons were found to be 2.3 times less likely to include non-White subjects in their posts, compared with non-White surgeons. Regionally, surgeons practicing in the Northeast had the most racially diverse social media accounts, with over 20% of all posts including a non-White subject. Analyzing data over the past 5 years demonstrated no relative increase in the amount of non-White subjects being displayed on social media, while social media use by gender affirming surgeons had increased by over 200%. Conclusions: The low number of non-White individuals portrayed by surgeons on social media perpetuates the racial disparity seen in patients accessing gender affirming surgery. Surgeons must be conscious of the demographic they portray on social media, as a lack of representation may influence patients' self-identify and decision to utilize gender affirming surgical treatment.

A Standardized Emergency Department Order Set Decreases Admission Rates and In-Patient Length of Stay for Adults Patients with Sickle Cell Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Pain associated with sickle cell disease (SCD) causes severe complications and frequent presentation to the emergency department (ED). Patients with SCD frequently report inadequate pain treatment in the ED, resulting in hospital admission. A retrospective analysis was conducted to assess a quality improvement project to standardize ED care for patients presenting with pain associated with SCD. METHODS: A 3-year prospective quality improvement initiative was performed. Our multidisciplinary team of providers implemented an ED order set in 2019 to improve care and provide adequate analgesia management. Our primary outcome was the overall hospital admission rate for patients after the intervention. Secondary outcome measures included ED disposition, rate of return to the ED within 72 hours, ED pain scores at admission and discharge, ED treatment time, in-patient length of stay, non-opioid medication use, and opioid medication use. RESULTS: There was an overall 67% reduction in the hospital admission rate after implementation of the order set (P = 0.005) and a significant decrease in the percentage admission rate month over month (P = 0.047). Time to the first non-opioid analgesic decreased by 71 minutes (P > 0.001), and there was no change in time to the first opioid medication. The rate of return to the ED within 72 hours remained unchanged (7.0% vs 7.1%) (P = 0.93), and the ED elopement rate remained unchanged (1.3% vs 1.85%) (P = 0.93). After the implementation, there were significant increases in the prescribing of orally administered acetaminophen (7%), celecoxib (1.2%), and tizanidine (12.5%) and intravenous ketamine (30.5%) and ketorolac (27%). ED pain scores at discharge were unchanged for both hospital-admitted (7.12 vs 7.08) (P = 0.93) and non-admitted (5.51 vs 6.11) (P = 0.27) patients. The resulting potential cost reduction was determined to be $193,440 during the 12-month observation period, with the mean cost per visit decreasing by $792. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a standardized and multimodal ED order set reduced hospital admission rates and the timeliness of analgesia without negatively impacting patients' pain.