Discussing and Teaching About Race and Health Inequities.

Health inequities are prevalent in our medical institutions and result in unfair access to and delivery of health care. Some of the most profound health disparities are related to race, which has erroneously been used to make biological inferences to explain disease states in medicine. Our profession continues to shift away from such race-based medical narratives, which do not examine how social determinants of health, social injustice, systemic racism, and existing power structures shape health outcomes toward a health equity mindset and race-conscious medicine. Clinician educators are responsible for teaching and engaging with learners around issues of inequity in medicine, although many may feel they lack the knowledge or skills to do so. Opportunities for conversations on health equity abound, either as a response to statements made by clinical peers or patients, or through direct clinical care of affected populations. In this paper, we focus our discussion of health equity around the topic of race corrections in spirometry, which is one of several salient areas of conversation in the field of pulmonary medicine undergoing reconciliation. We review basic definitions and concepts in health equity and apply three strategies to engage in conversations around equity with colleagues and learners: actively learning and reflecting on health inequities, recognizing and naming inequities, and consciously role-modeling equity-conscious language and care. We also will summarize strategies for implementing health equity concepts into the continuum of medical education and our clinical learning environments.

COVID-19: Lessons Learned, Lessons Unlearned, Lessons for the Future.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected clinicians in many different ways. Clinicians have their own experiences and lessons that they have learned from their work in the pandemic. This article outlines a few lessons learned from the eyes of CHEST Critical Care Editorial Board members, namely practices which will be abandoned, novel practices to be adopted moving forward, and proposed changes to the health care system in general. In an attempt to start the discussion of how health care can grow from the pandemic, the editorial board members outline their thoughts on these lessons learned.

The Virtual Interview Experience: Perspectives of Pulmonary and Critical Care Fellowship Applicants.

Background: Because of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, graduate medical education programs adopted virtual interviews (VIs) as the default modality for the 2020 recruitment season. It is unknown whether VIs allowed applicants to effectively evaluate programs, and the best interview format for the future is unclear. Objective: To 1) assess pulmonary and critical care applicants' perceived ability to evaluate programs using VIs, 2) determine the attitudes of applicants toward the components of VIs, and 3) identify applicants' preferences for the future fellowship interview format. Methods: After the National Residency Matching Program medical subspecialty match, an electronic survey was sent to 1,067 applicants to pulmonary and critical care medicine programs asking them to compare their fellowship VI experience with their residency in-person interview (IPI) experience. Results: Three hundred six (29%) applicants responded to the survey, and 289 completed it (27%). There were 117 (40%) women and 146 (51%) White individuals. Most respondents believed that VIs hindered their ability to evaluate programs' culture, faculty-fellow relationships, location, facilities, and their own fit within the program. They believed they were able to evaluate the clinical experience, curriculum, and potential for academic development equally well compared with IPIs. The most helpful elements of VIs were the interview with the program director, meetings with the fellows, and interviews with faculty members. Less helpful elements included conference access, prerecorded program director presentations, virtual hospital and city tours, and video testimonials. One hundred twenty-three respondents (43%) chose VIs with an optional visit as their preferred future interview format, 85 (29%) chose IPIs, 54 (19%) wanted a choice between VIs and IPIs, and 27 (9%) chose VIs only. Conclusion: Most pulmonary and critical care medicine applicants preferred future interviews to include both VIs and the option of an in-person visit or interview. This study can assist programs in designing their future interview formats in a trainee-centric fashion.

Mechanical Ventilation and Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Case-Control Analysis of Clinical Characteristics, Lung Mechanics, and Mortality.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the differences in clinical course, ventilator mechanics, and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 secondary to acute respiratory distress syndrome infection compared with a historical cohort of acute respiratory distress syndrome. DESIGN: Comparative case-control study. SETTING: Multicenter, comprehensive tertiary healthcare facility in Detroit, MI. PATIENTS/SUBJECTS: Adult patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 secondary to acute respiratory distress syndrome infection were compared with patients hospitalized with acute respiratory distress syndrome prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic (control). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We included 384 patients in the analysis. Inpatient mortality was significantly higher in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 secondary to acute respiratory distress syndrome infection compared with controls (64% vs 49%; p = 0.007). Despite both groups demonstrating similar ventilatory function and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score on day 1 of intubation, with similar lung compliance throughout the study period, patients with coronavirus disease 2019 secondary to acute respiratory distress syndrome infection demonstrated progressive hypoxia compared with controls across the study period. Similarly, higher positive end-expiratory pressure levels and increased use of paralytics were observed in the patients with coronavirus disease 2019 secondary to acute respiratory distress syndrome infection group. On univariate analysis of the entire cohort, significant risk factors for inpatient mortality included coronavirus disease 2019 infection (p = 0.007), older age (p < 0.001), high Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (p = 0.003), vasopressor use (p = 0.039), paralytic use (p < 0.001), higher positive end-expiratory pressure levels on day 3 (p = 0.027) and day 7 (p < 0.001), in addition to acute respiratory distress syndrome severity on both days 3 (p = 0.008) and 7 (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified coronavirus disease 2019 infection (odds ratio, 1.939; p = 0.021), older age (odds ratio, 1.042; p < 0.001), paralytic use (odds ratio, 3.366; p < 0.001), and higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (odds ratio, 1.152; p = 0.027) as significant predictors of mortality across the entire cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 secondary to acute respiratory distress syndrome infection demonstrated higher mortality compared with control patients hospitalized with acute respiratory distress syndrome prior to the pandemic, with progressive hypoxia throughout the study period, despite similar lung mechanics and initial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Coronavirus disease 2019 infection, older age, paralytic use, and higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were independent risk factors for 28-day mortality across the entire cohort.

While You Don't See Color, I See Bias: Identifying Barriers in Access to Graduate Medical Education Training.

There is a need to acknowledge and address issues of implicit and explicit bias within medical education. These biases can impact standardized test questions and scores, evaluations of clinical performance, and subsequent letters of recommendation, all of which can affect the selection of diverse candidates advancing through medical training. Biased behavior toward trainees can negatively impact their learning environment and career trajectory. This article outlines key definitions related to bias and discusses the ways in which bias potentially impacts selection and entry into Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine fellowship training. Finally, we will describe some ways to mitigate bias within the fellowship selection process and training programs.

Racial Differences in a Detroit, MI, ICU Population of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the potential influence of racial differences in outcomes of patients infected by coronavirus disease 2019-positive patients who require intensive care in an urban hospital. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Henry Ford Health System Multidisciplinary ICU, a total of 156 beds spread throughout the hospital in Detroit, MI. PATIENTS: We obtained data from the electronic medical record of all adult severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2-positive patients managed in the ICU of Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, MI, between March 13, 2020, and July 31, 2020. Included patients were divided into two groups: people of color (including Black, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, and Arab) and White. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 365 patients were evaluated: 219 were Black (60.0%), 129 were White (35.3%), two were Asian (0.6%), eight were Hispanic/Latino (2.2%), and seven were Arab (1.9%). People of color were younger (62.8 vs 67.1; p = 0.007), with equal distribution of sex. People of color had less coronary artery disease (34 [14.4%] vs 35 [27.1%]; p =0.003) and less self-reported use of regular alcohol consumption (50 [21.2%] vs 12 [9.3%]; p = 0.004) than Whites, with no differences in diabetes (125 [53.0%] vs 66 [51.2%]; p = 0.742), hypertension (188 [79.7%] vs 99 [76.8%]; p = 0.516), congestive heart failure (41 [17.4%] vs 32 [24.8%]; p = 0.090), or chronic kidney disease (123 [54.1%] vs 55 [42.6%]; p = 0.083).There was no difference in ICU length of stay between people of color (18 d [CI, 7-47 d]) and Whites (18 d [CI, 6-48 d]; p = 0. 0.979). Neither frequency (72.5% vs 71.3%; p = ns) nor median time to mechanical ventilation between people of color (9 d [CI, 6-15 d]) and Whites (10 d [CI, 5-16 d]; p = 0.733) was different. Overall, 188 patients (51.5 %) died in the hospital. The 28-day mortality was lower in people of color (107/236; 45.3%) versus Whites (73/129; 56.6%) (adjusted odds ratio 0.60; p = 0.034), and there was an increased median survival time in people of color (20 d) versus Whites (13.5 d; hazard ratio 0.62; p = 0.002). The inhospital mortality was lower in people of color versus White, but the difference was not statistically significant (113 [47.9%] vs 75 [58.1%], respectively; p = 0.061). Finally, there was no significant difference in days of symptoms prior to admission, frequency of presenting symptoms, or frequency or severity of acute respiratory distress syndrome between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients infected with coronavirus disease 2019, people of color had a lower 28-day mortality than Whites with no difference in hospital mortality, ICU length of stay, or rates of intubation. These findings are contrary to previously held beliefs surrounding the pandemic.

A Feasibility Assessment of Behavioral-based Interviewing to Improve Candidate Selection for a Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Fellowship Program.

Traditional interviews for residency and fellowship training programs are an important component in the selection process, but can be of variable value due to a nonstandardized approach. We redesigned the candidate interview process for our large pulmonary and critical care medicine fellowship program in the United States using a behavioral-based interview (BBI) structure. The primary goal of this approach was to standardize the assessment of candidates within noncognitive domains with the goal of selecting those with the best fit for our institution's fellowship program. Eight faculty members attended two BBI workshops. The first workshop identified our program's "best fit" criteria using the framework of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's six core competencies and additional behaviors that fit within our programs. BBI questions were then selected from a national database and refined based on the attributes deemed most important by our faculty. In the second workshop, faculty practiced the BBI format in mock interviews with third-year fellows. The interview process was further refined based on feedback from the interviewees, and then applied with fellowship candidates for the 2014 recruitment season. The 1-year pilot of behavioral-based interviewing allowed us to achieve consensus on the traits sought for our incoming fellows and to standardize the interview process for our program using the framework of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies. Although the effects of this change on the clinical performance of our fellows have not yet been assessed, this description of our development and implementation processes may be helpful for programs seeking to redesign their applicant interviews.

Early goal-directed therapy in severe sepsis and septic shock: insights and comparisons to ProCESS, ProMISe, and ARISE.

Prior to 2001 there was no standard for early management of severe sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department. In the presence of standard or usual care, the prevailing mortality was over 40-50 %. In response, a systems-based approach, similar to that in acute myocardial infarction, stroke and trauma, called early goal-directed therapy was compared to standard care and this clinical trial resulted in a significant mortality reduction. Since the publication of that trial, similar outcome benefits have been reported in over 70 observational and randomized controlled studies comprising over 70,000 patients. As a result, early goal-directed therapy was largely incorporated into the first 6 hours of sepsis management (resuscitation bundle) adopted by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign and disseminated internationally as the standard of care for early sepsis management. Recently a trio of trials (ProCESS, ARISE, and ProMISe), while reporting an all-time low sepsis mortality, question the continued need for all of the elements of early goal-directed therapy or the need for protocolized care for patients with severe and septic shock. A review of the early hemodynamic pathogenesis, historical development, and definition of early goal-directed therapy, comparing trial conduction methodology and the changing landscape of sepsis mortality, are essential for an appropriate interpretation of these trials and their conclusions.