Increased Mortality of Black Incarcerated and Hospitalized People: a Single State Cohort Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify racial disparities in mortality and post-hospitalization outcomes among incarcerated individuals that were hospitalized during their incarceration period. METHODS: We designed a retrospective cohort study using administrative and hospital data collected from a preferred healthcare referral center for all Massachusetts jails and prisons between January 2011 and December 2018 with linkage to Massachusetts Vital Records and Statistics. We identified 4260 incarcerated individuals with complete data on race/ethnicity that were hospitalized during the study period. The primary study indicators were age, race, ethnicity, length of hospital stay, Elixhauser comorbidity score, incarceration facility type, and number of hospital admissions. The primary outcome was time to death. RESULTS: Of the incarcerated individuals that were hospitalized, 2606 identified as White, 1214 identified as Black, and 411 people who identified as some other race. The hazard of death significantly increased by 3% (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 1.02-1.03) for each additional yearly increase in age. After adjusting for the interaction between race and age, Black race was significantly associated with 3.01 increased hazard (95% CI: 1.75-5.19) of death for individuals hospitalized while incarcerated compared to White individuals hospitalized while incarcerated. Hispanic ethnicity and being incarcerated in a prison facility was not associated with time to mortality, while increased mean Elixhauser score (HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.06-1.08) and ≥ 3 hospital admissions (HR: 2.47; 95% CI: 2.07-2.95) increased the hazard of death. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest disparities exist in the mortality outcomes among Black and White individuals who are hospitalized during incarceration, with an increased rate of death among Black individuals. Despite hypothesized equal access to healthcare within correctional facilities, our findings suggest that incarcerated and hospitalized Black individuals may experience worse disparities than their White counterparts, which has not been previously explored or reported in the literature. In addition to decarceration, advocacy, and political efforts, increased efforts to support research access to datasets of healthcare outcomes, including hospitalization and death, for incarcerated people should be encouraged. Further research is needed to identify and address the implicit and explicit sources of these racial health disparities across the spectrum of healthcare provision.

Trends in Academic Productivity Among Radiologists During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: There is a scarcity of literature examining changes in radiologist research productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic. The current study aimed to investigate changes in academic productivity as measured by publication volume before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective cohort study included the publication data of 216 researchers consisting of associate professors, assistant professors, and professors of radiology. Wilcoxon's signed-rank test was used to identify changes in publication volume between the 1-year-long defined prepandemic period (publications between May 1, 2019, and April 30, 2020) and COVID-19 pandemic period (May 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021). RESULTS: There was a significantly increased mean annual volume of publications in the pandemic period (5.98, SD = 7.28) compared with the prepandemic period (4.98, SD = 5.53) (z = -2.819, P = .005). Subset analysis demonstrated a similar (17.4%) increase in publication volume for male researchers when comparing the mean annual prepandemic publications (5.10, SD = 5.79) compared with the pandemic period (5.99, SD = 7.60) (z = -2.369, P = .018). No statistically significant changes were found in similar analyses with the female subset. DISCUSSION: Significant increases in radiologist publication volume were found during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the year before. Changes may reflect an overall increase in academic productivity in response to clinical and imaging volume ramp down.

Female Leadership in Academic Plastic Surgery: A Comprehensive Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gender equity remains to be realized in academic plastic and reconstructive surgery. The purpose of this study was to measure the proportion of women in leadership roles in academic plastic and reconstructive surgery to verify where gender gaps may persist. METHODS: Six markers of leadership were analyzed: academic faculty rank, manuscript authorship, program directorship, journal editor-in-chief positions, society board of directors membership, and professional society membership. Descriptive statistics were performed, and chi-square tests were used to compare categorical variables. RESULTS: About 16 percent to 19 percent of practicing plastic surgeons are female, as measured by the percentage of female faculty and American Society of Plastic Surgeons members. Female plastic surgeons comprised 18.9 percent (n = 178) of the faculty from 88 academic plastic surgery institutions, and represented 9.9 percent of full professors and 10.8 percent of chiefs. Nineteen institutions had no female faculty. Women were first authors in 23.4 percent of publications and senior author in 14.7 percent of publications. No journal studied had a female editor-in-chief. Of the examined plastic and reconstructive societies, the proportion of women on the board of directors ranged from 16.7 percent to 23.5 percent. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of female program directors, first manuscript authors, and board members of certain societies is commensurate with the number of women in the field, suggesting an evolving landscape within the specialty. However, women remain underrepresented in many other leadership roles, heralding the work that remains to ensure gender parity exists for those pursuing leadership roles in the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery.

Applying crisis standards of care to critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: Does race/ethnicity affect triage scoring?

OBJECTIVE: Given the variability in crisis standards of care (CSC) guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic, we investigated the racial and ethnic differences in prioritization between 3 different CSC triage policies (New York, Massachusetts, USA), as well as a first come, first served (FCFS) approach, using a single patient population. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with intensive care unit (ICU) needs at a tertiary hospital on its peak COVID-19 ICU census day. We used medical record data to calculate a CSC score under 3 criteria: New York, Massachusetts with full comorbidity list (Massachusetts1), and MA with a modified comorbidity list (Massachusetts2). The CSC scores, as well as FCFS, determined which patients were eligible to receive critical care under 2 scarcity scenarios: 50 versus 100 ICU bed capacity. We assessed the association between race/ethnicity and eligibility for critical care with logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 211 patients, 139 (66%) were male, 95 (45%) were Hispanic, 23 (11%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 69 (33%) were non-Hispanic White. Hispanic patients had the fewest comorbidities. Assuming a 50 ICU bed capacity, Hispanic patients had significantly higher odds of receiving critical care services across all CSC guidelines, except FCFS. However, assuming a 100 ICU bed capacity, Hispanic patients had greater odds of receiving critical care services under only the Massachusetts2 guidelines (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.09 to 3.85). CONCLUSION: Varying CSC guidelines differentially affect racial and ethnic minority groups with regard to risk stratification. The equity implications of CSC guidelines require thorough investigation before CSC guidelines are implemented.