The Experience of Primary Caregivers of Undocumented Immigrants with End-Stage Kidney Disease that Rely on Emergency-Only Hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Undocumented immigrants with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) who rely on emergency-only hemodialysis (dialysis only after an emergency department evaluation) face psychosocial distress. Emergency-only hemodialysis (EOHD) is likely burdensome for primary caregivers as well. OBJECTIVE: To understand the experience of primary caregivers of undocumented immigrants with ESKD who rely on emergency-only hemodialysis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A qualitative, semi-structured interview study to assess the experiences of primary caregivers of undocumented immigrants with ESKD at a safety-net hospital in Denver, Colorado from June 28 to November 15, 2018. Applied thematic analysis was used to analyze interviews. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Twenty primary caregiver participants had a mean (SD) age of 46 (17), 13 (65%) were female, 7 (35%) were in an adult child caregiver role, and 13 (65%) were spouses. Five themes and 17 subthemes (in parentheses) were identified: (1) Caregiver role (providing emotional, physical, and economic support, advocacy and care navigation), (2) Caregiver burden (anxiety related to patient and personal death, emotional exhaustion and personal illness, struggle with finances, self-care and redefining relationship), (3) Unpredictable EOHD (acute episodes of illness that trigger emergency, stress when patient is denied dialysis, impact on work and sleep, and emotional relief after a session of EOHD), (4) Effect on children (dropping out or missing school, psychosocial distress, children assuming caregiver responsibilities, and juggling multi-generational caregiving of children), (5) Faith and appreciation (comfort in God and appreciation of healthcare). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Caregivers of undocumented immigrants with ESKD who rely upon EOHD experience caregiver burden and distress. The impact of EOHD on caregivers should be considered when assessing the consequences of excluding undocumented immigrants from public insurance programs.

Barriers to Early Hospital Discharge: A Cross-Sectional Study at Five Academic Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the issues delaying hospital discharges may inform efforts to improve hospital throughput. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to identify and determine the frequency of barriers contributing to delays in placing discharge orders. DESIGN: This was a prospective, cross-sectional study. Physicians were surveyed at approximately 8:00 AM, 12:00 PM, and 3:00 PM and were asked to identify patients that were "definite" or "possible" discharges and to describe the specific barriers to writing discharge orders. SETTING: This study was conducted at five hospitals in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: The study participants were attending and housestaff physicians on general medicine services. PRIMARY OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Specific barriers to writing discharge orders were the primary outcomes; the secondary outcomes included discharge order time for high versus low team census, teaching versus nonteaching services, and rounding style. RESULTS: Among 1,584 patient evaluations, the most common delays for patients identified as "definite" discharges (n = 949) were related to caring for other patients on the team or waiting to staff patients with attendings. The most common barriers for patients identified as "possible" discharges (n = 1,237) were awaiting patient improvement and for ancillary services to complete care. Discharge orders were written a median of 43-58 minutes earlier for patients on teams with a smaller versus larger census, on nonteaching versus teaching services, and when rounding on patients likely to be discharged first (all P < .003). CONCLUSIONS: Discharge orders for patients ready for discharge are most commonly delayed because physicians are caring for other patients. Discharges of patients awaiting care completion are most commonly delayed because of imbalances between availability and demand for ancillary services. Team census, rounding style, and teaching teams affect discharge times.

Association of Emergency-Only vs Standard Hemodialysis With Mortality and Health Care Use Among Undocumented Immigrants With End-stage Renal Disease.

Importance: Undocumented immigrants with end-stage renal disease have variable access to hemodialysis in the United States despite evidence-based standards for frequency of dialysis care. Objective: To determine whether mortality and health care use differs among undocumented immigrants who receive emergency-only hemodialysis vs standard hemodialysis (3 times weekly at a health care center). Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of undocumented immigrants with incident end-stage renal disease who initiated emergency-only hemodialysis (Denver Health, Denver, Colorado, and Harris Health, Houston, Texas) or standard (Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, California) hemodialysis between January 1, 2007, and July 15, 2014. Exposures: Access to emergency-only hemodialysis vs standard hemodialysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes were health care use (acute care days and ambulatory care visits) and rates of bacteremia. Outcomes were adjusted for propensity to undergo emergency hemodialysis vs standard hemodialysis. Results: A total of 211 undocumented patients (86 women and 125 men; mean [SD] age, 46.5 [14.6] years; 42 from the standard hemodialysis group and 169 from the emergency-only hemodialysis group) initiated hemodialysis during the study period. Patients receiving standard hemodialysis were more likely to initiate hemodialysis with an arteriovenous fistula or graft and had higher albumin and hemoglobin levels than patients receiving emergency-only hemodialysis. Adjusting for propensity score, the mean 3-year relative hazard of mortality among patients who received emergency-only hemodialysis was nearly 5-fold (hazard ratio, 4.96; 95% CI, 0.93-26.45; P = .06) greater compared with patients who received standard hemodialysis. Mean 5-year relative hazard of mortality for patients who received emergency-only hemodialysis was more than 14-fold (hazard ratio, 14.13; 95% CI, 1.24-161.00; P = .03) higher than for those who received standard hemodialysis after adjustment for propensity score. The number of acute care days for patients who received emergency-only hemodialysis was 9.81 times (95% CI, 6.27-15.35; P < .001) the expected number of days for patients who had standard hemodialysis after adjustment for propensity score. Ambulatory care visits for patients who received emergency-only hemodialysis were 0.31 (95% CI, 0.21-0.46; P < .001) times less than the expected number of days for patients who received standard hemodialysis. Conclusions and Relevance: Undocumented immigrants with end-stage renal disease treated with emergency-only hemodialysis have higher mortality and spend more days in the hospital than those receiving standard hemodialysis. States and cities should consider offering standard hemodialysis to undocumented immigrants.

Experiences and Values of Latinos with End Stage Renal Disease: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.

Patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) experience a high symptom burden and poor quality of life as part of their advanced illness. Latinos experience a higher prevalence of ESRD compared to non-Latino whites; however, they are underrepresented in existing ESRD literature. We conducted a systematic review of qualitative studies that include Latino patients with ESRD and their caregivers in the United States. Of 694 citations published through August 2014, six met inclusion criteria. Four major themes emerged: 1) Losses, 2) Heightened awareness of death, 3) Barriers to quality communication and care, and 4) Mediating Latino traditions and values. A thematic schema was developed.

Gender disparities in leadership and scholarly productivity of academic hospitalists.

BACKGROUND: Gender disparities still exist for women in academic medicine but may be less evident in younger cohorts. Hospital medicine is a new field, and the majority of hospitalists are <41 years of age. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether gender disparities exist in leadership and scholarly productivity for academic hospitalists and to compare the findings to academic general internists. DESIGN: Prospective and retrospective observational study. SETTING: University programs in the United States. MEASUREMENTS: Gender distribution of (1) academic hospitalists and general internists, (2) division or section heads for both specialties, (3) speakers at the 2 major national meetings of the 2 specialties, and (4) first and last authors of articles from the specialties' 2 major journals RESULTS: We found equal gender representation of hospitalists and general internists who worked in university hospitals. Divisions or sections of hospital medicine and general internal medicine were led by women at 11/69 (16%) and 28/80 (35%) of university hospitals, respectively (P = 0.008). Women hospitalists and general internists were listed as speakers on 146/557 (26%) and 291/580 (50%) of the presentations at national meetings, respectively (P < 0.0001), first authors on 153/464 (33%) and 423/895 (47%) publications, respectively (P < 0.0001), and senior authors on 63/305 (21%) and 265/769 (34%) articles, respectively (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite hospital medicine being a newer field, gender disparities exist in leadership and scholarly productivity.

Bacterial contamination of healthcare workers' uniforms: a randomized controlled trial of antimicrobial scrubs.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers' (HCWs) uniforms become contaminated with bacteria during normal use, and this may contribute to hospital-acquired infections. Antimicrobial uniforms are currently marketed as a means of reducing this contamination. OBJECTIVE: To compare the extent of bacterial contamination of uniforms and skin when HCWs wear 1 of 2 antimicrobial scrubs or standard scrubs. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: University-affiliated, public safety net hospital PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, housestaff, and nurses (total N = 105) working on internal medicine units. INTERVENTION: Subjects were randomized to wear standard scrubs or 1 of 2 antimicrobial scrubs. MEASUREMENTS: Bacterial colony counts in cultures taken from the HCWs' scrubs and wrists after an 8-hour workday. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) total colony counts was 99 (66-182) for standard scrubs, 137 (84-289) for antimicrobial scrub type A, and 138 (62-274) for antimicrobial scrub type B (P = 0.36). Colony counts from participants' wrists were 16 (5-40) when they wore standard scrubs and 23 (4-42) and 15 (6-54) when they wore antimicrobial scrubs A and B, respectively (P = 0.92). Resistant organisms were cultured from 3 HCWs (4.3%) randomized to antimicrobial scrubs and none randomized to standard scrubs (P = 0.55). Six participants (5.7%) reported side effects to wearing scrubs, all of whom wore antimicrobial scrubs (P = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that either antimicrobial scrub product decreased bacterial contamination of HCWs' uniforms or skin after an 8-hour workday.

Prospective comparison of curbside versus formal consultations.

BACKGROUND: Curbside consultations are commonly requested during the care of hospitalized patients, but physicians perceive that the recommendations provided may be based on inaccurate or incomplete information. OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy and completeness of the information received from providers requesting a curbside consultation of hospitalists with that obtained in a formal consultation on the same patients, and to examine whether the recommendations offered in the 2 consultations differed. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: University-affiliated, urban safety net hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of curbside consultations with inaccurate or incomplete information; frequency with which recommendations in the formal consultation differed from those in the curbside consultation. RESULTS: Curbside consultations were requested for 50 patients, 47 of which were also evaluated in a formal consultation performed on the same day by a hospitalist other than the one performing the curbside consultation. Based on information collected in the formal consultation, information was either inaccurate or incomplete in 24/47 (51%) of the curbside consultations. Management advice after formal consultation differed from that given in the curbside consultation for 28/47 patients (60%). When inaccurate or incomplete information was received, the advice provided in the formal versus the curbside consultation differed in 22/24 patients (92%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Information presented during inpatient curbside consultations of hospitalists is often inaccurate or incomplete, and this often results in inaccurate management advice.