Does Failure to Rescue Drive Race/Ethnicity-based Disparities in Survival After Heart Transplantation?

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess whether race/ethnicity is an independent predictor of failure to rescue (FTR) after orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Outcomes following OHT vary by patient level factors; for example, non-White patients have worse outcomes than White patients after OHT. Failure to rescue is an important factor associated with cardiac surgery outcomes, but its relationship to demographic factors is unknown. METHODS: Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, we included all adult patients who underwent primary isolated OHT between 1/1/2006 snd 6/30/2021. FTR was defined as the inability to prevent mortality after at least one of the UNOS-designated postoperative complications. Donor, recipient, and transplant characteristics, including complications and FTR, were compared across race/ethnicity. Logistic regression models were created to identify factors associated with complications and FTR. Kaplan Meier and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the association between race/ethnicity and posttransplant survival. RESULTS: There were 33,244 adult, isolated heart transplant recipients included: the distribution of race/ethnicity was 66% (n=21,937) White, 21.2% (7,062) Black, 8.3% (2,768) Hispanic, and 3.3% (1,096) Asian. The frequency of complications and FTR differed significantly by race/ethnicity. After adjustment, Hispanic recipients were more likely to experience FTR than White recipients (OR 1.327, 95% CI[1.075-1.639], P =0.02). Black recipients had lower 5-year survival compared with other races/ethnicities (HR 1.276, 95% CI[1.207-1.348], P <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In the US, Black recipients have an increased risk of mortality after OHT compared with White recipients, without associated differences in FTR. In contrast, Hispanic recipients have an increased likelihood of FTR, but no significant mortality difference compared with White recipients. These findings highlight the need for tailored approaches to addressing race/ethnicity-based health inequities in the practice of heart transplantation.

Evaluation of the US detention standards to protect the health and dignity of migrants: a systematic review of national health standards.

OBJECTIVE: The US government detains hundreds of thousands of migrants across a network of facilities each year. This research aims to evaluate the completeness of standards across US detention agencies to protect the health and dignity of migrants. DESIGN: Five documents from three US agencies were examined in a systematic review: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE; 3), Customs and Border Protection (CBP; 1) and Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR; 1). Standards within five public health categories (health, hygiene, shelter, food and nutrition, protection) were extracted from each document and coded by subcategory and area. Areas were classified as critical, essential or supportive. Standards were measured for specificity, measurability, attainability, relevancy and timeliness (SMART), resulting in a sufficiency score (0%-100%). Average sufficiency scores were calculated for areas and agencies. RESULTS: 711 standards were extracted within 5 categories, 12 subcategories and 56 areas. 284 standards of the 711 standards were included in multiple (2-7) areas, resulting in 1173 standards counted as many times as each was included. On average, 85.4% of standards were specific, 87.1% measurable, 96.6% attainable and 74.9% time-bound. All standards were considered relevant. CBP standards were the least sufficient across all other SMART components, when compared with ICE and ORR. CONCLUSIONS: There are disparate detention standards based on agencies' mandates and type of facility contracts. Migrants should be ensured of their public health rights and services in all spaces they occupy, and for any length of time regardless of who manages the facility. As long as detention remains a policy, the US should develop comprehensive, consistent and complementary standards for all detention facilities or pursue alternatives to detention.

The United States detention system for migrants: Patterns of negligence and inconsistency.

The United States of America (US) detains more migrants than any other nation. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detain adults and families under the Department of Homeland Security, while unaccompanied minors are housed under the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the Department of Health and Human Services. Migrants are subject to the standards and oversight of each individual agency and facility where they are detained. This paper presents an analysis of whether the current US migrant detention system upholds the standards of each agency to maintain the health of migrants. A review of peer and grey literature, along with interviews with key informants (KI) who had worked in or visited ICE, CBP, or ORR facilities since January 2018 were undertaken. Analysis of the literature review and KI interviews covered five thematic areas: health, protection of vulnerable populations, shelter, food and nutrition, and hygiene. Thirty-nine peer-reviewed publications and 28 US Office of Inspector General reports from 2010 to 2020 were reviewed. Seventeen KI interviews were conducted. Though all three detention agencies had significant areas of concern, CBP's inability to abide by its health standards was particularly alarming. The persistence of low compliance with standards stemmed from weak accountability mechanisms, minimal transparency, and inadequate capacity to provide essential services. We have five recommendations: (1) expand independent monitoring and evaluation mechanisms; (2) standardize health standards across the three agencies; (3) develop a systematic evaluation tool to help external visitors, including members of Congress, assess the degree of implementation of standards; (4) enforce consequences for private contractors who violate standards; and (5) restrict the use of waivers that allow detention facilities to circumvent compliance with standards. Ultimately, the US federal government should explore and implement alternatives to detention to maintain the health and dignity of the individuals under its care.

Patterns of referral for refugees in western Tanzania: a retrospective review.

Introduction: access to essential secondary and tertiary healthcare, including surgery and medical sub-specialties, is a challenge in low-and-middle income countries (LMICs), especially for displaced populations. Referrals from refugee camps are highly regulated and may pose barriers to accessing essential secondary healthcare in a timely manner. Refugee referral systems and the ways they interact with national systems are poorly understood. Such information is necessary for resource allocation and prioritization, optimizing patient outcomes, national-level planning, and investment in capacity-building. Methods: a retrospective review of referrals from Nyarugusu Refugee Camp in Tanzania to Kabanga Hospital between January 2016-May 2017 was conducted. Data was collected from logbooks on patient demographics, diagnosis, and reason for referral. Diagnoses and reasons for referral were further coded by organ system and specific referral codes, respectively. Results: there were 751 entries in the referral logbook between January 2016 and May 2017. Of these, 79 (10.5%) were excluded as they were caretakers or missing both diagnoses and reason for referral resulting in 672 (89.5%) total entries for analysis.The most common organ system of diagnosis was musculoskeletal (171, 25.5%) followed by head, ear, eye, nose and throat (n=164, 24.4%) and infectious disease (n=92, 13.7%). The most common reason for referral was imaging (n=250, 37.2%) followed by need for a specialist (n=214, 31.9%) and further management (n=116, 17.3%). X-ray comprised the majority of imaging referred (n=249, 99.6%). The most common specialties referred to were ophthalmology (n=104, 48.6%) followed by surgery (n=63, 29.4%), and otolaryngology (ENT) (n=17, 7.9%). Conclusion: given a large burden of referral for refugee patients and sharing of in and out-of-camp healthcare facilities with nationals, refugees should be included in national health care plans and have clear referral processes. Epidemiological data that include these intertwined referral patterns are necessary to promote efficient resource allocation, reduce unnecessary referrals, and prevent delays in care that could affect patient outcomes. International agencies, NGOs, and governments should conduct cost analyses to explore innovative capacity-building projects for secondary care in camp-based facilities.

COVID-19 in humanitarian settings: documenting and sharing context-specific programmatic experiences.

Humanitarian organizations have developed innovative and context specific interventions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic as guidance has been normative in nature and most are not humanitarian specific. In April 2020, three universities developed a COVID-19 humanitarian-specific website ( www.covid19humanitarian.com ) to allow humanitarians from the field to upload their experiences or be interviewed by academics to share their creative responses adapted to their specific country challenges in a standardised manner. These field experiences are reviewed by the three universities together with various guidance documents and uploaded to the website using an operational framework. The website currently hosts 135 guidance documents developed by 65 different organizations, and 65 field experiences shared by 29 organizations from 27 countries covering 38 thematic areas. Examples of challenges and innovative solutions from humanitarian settings are provided for triage and sexual and gender-based violence. Offering open access resources on a neutral platform by academics can provide a space for constructive dialogue among humanitarians at the country, regional and global levels, allowing humanitarian actors at the country level to have a strong and central voice. We believe that this neutral and openly accessible platform can serve as an example for future large-scale emergencies and epidemics.

The potential impact of COVID-19 in refugee camps in Bangladesh and beyond: A modeling study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 could have even more dire consequences in refugees camps than in general populations. Bangladesh has confirmed COVID-19 cases and hosts almost 1 million Rohingya refugees from Myanmar, with 600,000 concentrated in the Kutupalong-Balukhali Expansion Site (mean age, 21 years; standard deviation [SD], 18 years; 52% female). Projections of the potential COVID-19 burden, epidemic speed, and healthcare needs in such settings are critical for preparedness planning. METHODS AND FINDINGS: To explore the potential impact of the introduction of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the Kutupalong-Balukhali Expansion Site, we used a stochastic Susceptible Exposed Infectious Recovered (SEIR) transmission model with parameters derived from emerging literature and age as the primary determinant of infection severity. We considered three scenarios with different assumptions about the transmission potential of SARS-CoV-2. From the simulated infections, we estimated hospitalizations, deaths, and healthcare needs expected, age-adjusted for the Kutupalong-Balukhali Expansion Site age distribution. Our findings suggest that a large-scale outbreak is likely after a single introduction of the virus into the camp, with 61%-92% of simulations leading to at least 1,000 people infected across scenarios. On average, in the first 30 days of the outbreak, we expect 18 (95% prediction interval [PI], 2-65), 54 (95% PI, 3-223), and 370 (95% PI, 4-1,850) people infected in the low, moderate, and high transmission scenarios, respectively. These reach 421,500 (95% PI, 376,300-463,500), 546,800 (95% PI, 499,300-567,000), and 589,800 (95% PI, 578,800-595,600) people infected in 12 months, respectively. Hospitalization needs exceeded the existing hospitalization capacity of 340 beds after 55-136 days, between the low and high transmission scenarios. We estimate 2,040 (95% PI, 1,660-2,500), 2,650 (95% PI, 2,030-3,380), and 2,880 (95% PI, 2,090-3,830) deaths in the low, moderate, and high transmission scenarios, respectively. Due to limited data at the time of analyses, we assumed that age was the primary determinant of infection severity and hospitalization. We expect that comorbidities, limited hospitalization, and intensive care capacity may increase this risk; thus, we may be underestimating the potential burden. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a COVID-19 epidemic in a refugee settlement may have profound consequences, requiring large increases in healthcare capacity and infrastructure that may exceed what is currently feasible in these settings. Detailed and realistic planning for the worst case in Kutupalong-Balukhali and all refugee camps worldwide must begin now. Plans should consider novel and radical strategies to reduce infectious contacts and fill health worker gaps while recognizing that refugees may not have access to national health systems.

Cancer in Syrian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon between 2015 and 2017.

Protracted conflicts in the Middle East have led to successive waves of refugees crossing borders. Chronic, non-communicable diseases are now recognised as diseases that need to be addressed in such crises. Cancer, in particular, with its costly, multidisciplinary care, poses considerable financial and ethical challenges for policy makers. In 2014 and with funding from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, we reported on cancer cases among Iraqi refugees in Jordan (2010-12) and Syria (2009-11). In this Policy Review, we provide data on 733 refugees referred to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Lebanon (2015-17) and Jordan (2016-17), analysed by cancer type, demographic risk factors, treatment coverage status, and cost. Results show the need for increased funding and evidence-based standard operating procedures across countries to ensure that patients have equitable access to care. We recommend a holistic response to humanitarian crises that includes education, screening, treatment, and palliative care for refugees and nationals and prioritises breast cancer and childhood cancers.

A Patient-Centered Understanding of the Referral System in Ethiopian Primary Health Care Units.

BACKGROUND: Primary healthcare systems in sub-Saharan Africa have undergone substantial development in an effort to expand access to appropriate facilities through a well-functioning referral system. The objective of this study was to evaluate the current patterns of seeking prior care before arriving at a health center or a hospital as a key aspect of the referral system of the primary health care unit (PHCU) in three regions in Ethiopia. We examined what percentage of patients had either sought prior care or had been referred to the present facility and identified demographic and clinical factors associated with having sought prior care or having been referred. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using face-to-face interviews in the local language with 796 people (99% response rate) seeking outpatient care in three primary health care units serving approximately 100,000 people each and reflecting regional and ethnic diversity; 53% (N = 418) of the sample was seeking care at hospital outpatient departments, and 47% of the sample was seeking care at health centers (N = 378). We used unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression to identify factors associated with having been referred or sought prior care. Our findings indicated that only 10% of all patients interviewed had been referred to their current place of care. Among those in the hospital population, 14% had been referred; among those in the health center population, only 6% had been referred. Of those who had been referred to the hospital, most (74%) had been referred by a health center. Among those who were referred to the health center, the plurality portion (32%) came from a nearby hospital (most commonly for continued HIV treatment or early childhood vaccinations); only 18% had come from a health post. Among patients who had not been formally referred, an additional 25% in the hospital sample and 10% in the health center sample had accessed some prior source of care for their present health concern. In the adjusted analysis, living a longer distance from the source of care and needing more specialized care were correlated with having sought prior care in the hospital sample. We found no factors significantly associated with having sought prior care in the health center sample. CONCLUSIONS: The referral system among health facilities in Ethiopia is used by a minority of patients, suggesting that intended connections between health posts, health centers, and hospitals may need strengthening to increase the efficiency of primary care nationally.