Operationalizing Equity, Inclusion, and Access in Research Practice at a Large Academic Institution.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare advances are hindered by underrepresentation in prospective research; sociodemographic, data, and measurement infidelity in retrospective research; and a paucity of guidelines surrounding equitable research practices. OBJECTIVE: The Joint Research Practices Working Group was created in 2021 to develop and disseminate guidelines for the conduct of inclusive and equitable research. METHODS: Volunteer faculty and staff from two research centers at the University of Pennsylvania initiated a multi-pronged approach to guideline development, including literature searches, center-level feedback, and mutual learning with local experts. RESULTS: We developed guidelines for (1) participant payment and incentives; (2) language interpretation and translation; (3) plain language in research communications; (4) readability of study materials; and (5) inclusive language for scientific communications. Key recommendations include (1) offer cash payments and multiple payment options to participants when required actions are completed; (2) identify top languages of your target population, map points of contact, and determine available interpretation and translation resources; (3) assess reading levels of materials and simplify language, targeting 6th- to 8th-grade reading levels; (4) improve readability through text formatting and style, symbols, and visuals; and (5) use specific, humanizing terms as adjectives rather than nouns. CONCLUSIONS: Diversity, inclusion, and access are critical values for research conduct that promotes justice and equity. These values can be operationalized through organizational commitment that combines bottom-up and top-down approaches and through partnerships across organizations that promote mutual learning and synergy. While our guidelines represent best practices at one time, we recognize that practices evolve and need to be evaluated continuously for accuracy and relevance. Our intention is to bring awareness to these critical topics and form a foundation for important conversations surrounding equitable and inclusive research practices.

Addressing anti-black racism in an academic preterm birth initiative: perspectives from a mixed methods case study.

BACKGROUND: Growing recognition of racism perpetuated within academic institutions has given rise to anti-racism efforts in these settings. In June 2020, the university-based California Preterm Birth Initiative (PTBi) committed to an Anti-Racism Action Plan outlining an approach to address anti-Blackness. This case study assessed perspectives on PTBi's anti-racism efforts to support continued growth toward racial equity within the initiative. METHODS: This mixed methods case study included an online survey with multiple choice and open-ended survey items (n = 27) and key informant interviews (n = 8) of leadership, faculty, staff, and trainees working within the initiative. Survey and interview questions focused on perspectives about individual and organizational anti-racism competencies, perceived areas of initiative success, and opportunities for improvement. Qualitative interview and survey data were coded and organized into common themes within assessment domains. RESULTS: Most survey respondents reported they felt competent in all the assessed anti-racism skills, including foundational knowledge and responding to workplace racism. They also felt confident in PTBi's commitment to address anti-Blackness. Fewer respondents were clear on strategic plans, resources allocated, and how the anti-racism agenda was being implemented. Suggestions from both data sources included further operationalizing and communicating commitments, integrating an anti-racism lens across all activities, ensuring accountability including staffing and funding consistent with anti-racist approaches, persistence in hiring Black faculty, providing professional development and support for Black staff, and addressing unintentional interpersonal harms to Black individuals. CONCLUSIONS: This case study contributes key lessons which move beyond individual-level and theoretical approaches towards transparency and accountability in academic institutions aiming to address anti-Black racism. Even with PTBi's strong commitment and efforts towards racial equity, these case study findings illustrate that actions must have sustained support by the broader institution and include leadership commitment, capacity-building via ongoing coaching and training, broad incorporation of anti-racism practices and procedures, continuous learning, and ongoing accountability for both short- and longer-term sustainable impact.

Enhanced Communication for Interhospital Transfers Increases Preparedness in an Academic Tertiary Care Center.

OBJECTIVES: This quality improvement project sought to enhance clinical information sharing for interhospital transfers to an inpatient hepatology service comprised of internal medicine resident frontline providers (housestaff) with the specific aims of making housestaff aware of 100% of incoming transfers and providing timely access to clinical summaries. INTERVENTIONS: In February 2020, an email notification system to senior medicine residents responsible for patient triage shared planned arrival time for patients pending transfer. In July 2020, a clinical data repository ("Transfer Log") updated daily by accepting providers (attending physicians and subspecialty fellows) became available to senior medicine residents responsible for triage. METHODS: Likert scale surveys were administered to housestaff before email intervention (pre) and after transfer log intervention (post). The time from patient arrival to team assignment (TTA) in the electronic medical record was used as a proxy for time to patient assessment and was measured pre- and postinterventions; >2 hours to TTA was considered an extreme delay. RESULTS: Housestaff reported frequency of access to clinical information as follows: preinterventions 4/31 (13%) sometimes/very often and 27/31 (87%) never/rarely; postinterventions 11/26 (42%) sometimes/very often and 15/26 (58%) never/rarely (p = 0.02). Preinterventions 12/39 (31%) felt "not at all prepared" versus 27/39 (69%) "somewhat" or "adequately"; postinterventions 2/24 (8%) felt "not at all prepared" versus 22/24 (92%) somewhat/adequately prepared (p = 0.06). There was a significant difference in mean TTA between pre- and posttransfer log groups (62 vs. 40 minutes, p = 0.01) and a significant reduction in patients with extreme delays in TTA post-email (18/180 pre-email vs. 7/174 post-email, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Early notification and increased access to clinical information were associated with better sense of preparedness for admitting housestaff, reduction in TTA, and reduced frequency of extreme delays in team assignment.

Association of facility type with overall survival in patients with nonsurgically managed pancreatic cancer.

Aim: To investigate the association between receiving treatment at academic centers and overall survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients who do not receive definitive surgery of the pancreatic tumor. Methods: Using the National Cancer Database, patients who were diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma between 2004 to 2016 were identified. Results: Of 262,209 patients, 101,003 (38.5%) received treatment at academic centers. In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, patients who received treatment at a nonacademic facility had significantly worse overall survival compared with patients who were treated at an academic center (hazard ratio: 1.279; 95% CI: 1.268-1.290; p = 0.001). Conclusion: Compared with treatment at academic centers, treatment at nonacademic centers was associated with significantly worse overall survival in patients with nonsurgically managed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

The aim of this study is to examine the association between receiving treatment at academic hospitals and overall survival in patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer who do not receive definitive surgery of the pancreatic tumor. The authors used the National Cancer Database to identify patients who were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer between 2004 and 2016. The authors' study included 262,209 patients. The authors found that patients who received treatment at nonacademic hospitals were on average 28% more likely to die of any cause compared with patients who were treated at academic centers (hazard ratio: 1.279; 95% CI: 1.268­1.290; p < 0.001). Patients who received treatment at nonacademic hospitals were more likely to die of any cause compared with patients who received treatment at academic hospitals.

A Quality Improvement Bundle to Improve Outcomes in Extremely Preterm Infants in the First Week.

OBJECTIVES: Our objective with this quality improvement initiative was to reduce rates of severe intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) or death in the first week after birth among extremely preterm infants. METHODS: The quality improvement initiative was conducted from April 2014 to September 2020 at the University of Alabama at Birmingham's NICU. All actively treated inborn extremely preterm infants without congenital anomalies from 22 + 0/7 to 27 + 6/7 weeks' gestation with a birth weight ≥400 g were included. The primary outcome was severe ICH or death in the first 7 days after birth. Balancing measures included rates of acute kidney injury and spontaneous intestinal perforation. Outcome and process measure data were analyzed by using p-charts. RESULTS: We studied 820 infants with a mean gestational age of 25 + 3/7 weeks and median birth weight of 744 g. The rate of severe ICH or death in the first week after birth decreased from the baseline rate of 27.4% to 15.0%. The rate of severe ICH decreased from a baseline rate of 16.4% to 10.0%. Special cause variation in the rate of severe ICH or death in the first week after birth was observed corresponding with improvement in carbon dioxide and pH targeting, compliance with delayed cord clamping, and expanded use of indomethacin prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a bundle of evidence-based potentially better practices by using specific electronic order sets was associated with a lower rate of severe ICH or death in the first week among extremely preterm infants.

Outcomes of the Bethesda system for reporting thyroid cytopathology in community- vs. institution-performed cytology.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the important role of the community in the assessment and risk stratification of patients with thyroid nodules, evidence-based data on the Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (BSRTC) performance in community clinics is lacking. We aim to evaluate BSRTC performance of aspirations taken in community clinics compared with primary referral center. METHODS: Patients who underwent thyroid surgery between 2013 and 2018 at our institution were divided according to the fine needle aspirations (FNA) settings: community FNA (cFNA) vs. institutional FNA (iFNA). Demographics, BSRTC results and final pathology were collected. Diagnostic values were calculated for BSRTC categories (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV]), and were compared between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 268 nodules were included in the study; 77% (207) cFNA and 23% (61) iFNA. Patients in the community were younger (51.7 ± 15.1 vs. 56.6 years±14.8, p = 0.03) and with less epidemiology risk factors for thyroid cancer (1.9% vs 13.1%, p < 0.001). cFNA malignancy rate for BSRTC I-VI was 0%, 6.4%, 11.8%, 32.1%, 91.6% and 93.8% respectively. Best sensitivity was found for BSRTC III-VI in both groups (88% and 83%, cFNAs and iFNAs, respectively). Overall best performance was obtained for BSRTC V-VI for both groups (cfNA: 85%, 97%, 93%, 94% and 93%; iFNAs: 81%, 100%, 100%, 87% and 91%, for sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Community-performed FNAs demonstrate acceptable BSRTC distribution and malignancy rates, comparable with a primary referral academic hospital. This supports the universality of the BSRTC 2017 and its recommendations also in the community.

How to assure the quality of clinical records? A 7-year experience in a large academic hospital.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical record (CR) is the primary tool used by healthcare workers (HCWs) to record clinical information and its completeness can help achieve safer practices. CR is the most appropriate source in order to measure and evaluate the quality of care. In order to achieve a safety climate is fundamental to involve a responsive healthcare workforce thorough peer-review and feedbacks. This study aims to develop a peer-review tool for clinical records quality assurance, presenting the seven-year experience in the evolution of it; secondary aims are to describe the CR completeness and HCWs' diligence toward recording information in it. METHODS: To assess the completeness of CRs a peer-review tool was developed in a large Academic Hospital of Northern Italy. This tool included measurable items that examined different themes, moments and levels of the clinical process. Data were collected every three months between 2010 and 2016 by appointed and trained HCWs from 42 Units; the hospital Quality Unit was responsible for of processing and validating them. Variations in the proportion of CR completeness were assessed using Cochran-Armitage test for trends. RESULTS: A total of 9,408 CRs were evaluated. Overall CR completeness improved significantly from 79.6% in 2010 to 86.5% in 2016 (p<0.001). Doctors' attitude showed a trend similar to the overall completeness, while nurses improved more consistently (p<0.001). Most items exploring themes, moments and levels registered a significant improvement in the early years, then flattened in last years. Results of the validation process were always above the cut-off of 75%. CONCLUSIONS: This peer-review tool enabled the Quality Unit and hospital leadership to obtain a reliable picture of CRs completeness, while involving the HCWs in the quality evaluation. The completeness of CR showed an overall positive and significant trend during these seven years.

Adaptation and restructuring of an academic anesthesiology department during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City: Challenges and lessons learned.

The novel SARS-CoV-2 pandemic starting in 2019 profoundly changed the world, and thousands of residents of New York City were affected, leading to one of the most acute surges in regional hospital capacity. As the largest academic medical center in the Bronx, Montefiore Medical Center was immediately impacted, and the entire hospital was mobilized to address the needs of its community. In this article, we describe our experiences as a large academic anesthesiology department during this pandemic. Our goals were to maximize our staff's expertise, maintain our commitment to wellness and safety, and preserve the quality of patient care. Lessons learned include the importance of critical care training presence and leadership, the challenges of converting an ambulatory surgery center to an intensive care unit (ICU), and the management of effective communication. Lastly, we provide suggestions for institutions facing an acute surge, or subsequent waves of COVID-19, based on a single center's experiences.

Plastic Surgery amidst the Pandemic: The New York University Experience at the Epicenter of the COVID-19 Crisis.

SUMMARY: The coronavirus disease of 2019 pandemic became a global threat in a matter of weeks, with its future implications yet to be defined. New York City was swiftly declared the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States as case numbers grew exponentially in a matter of days, quickly threatening to overwhelm the capacity of the health care system. This burgeoning crisis led practitioners across specialties to adapt and mobilize rapidly. Plastic surgeons and trainees within the New York University Langone Health system faced uncertainty in terms of future practice, in addition to immediate and long-term effects on undergraduate and graduate medical education. The administration remained vigilant and adaptive, enacting departmental policies prioritizing safety and productivity, with early deployment of faculty for clinical support at the front lines. The authors anticipate that this pandemic will have far-reaching effects on the future of plastic surgery education, trends in the pursuit of elective surgical procedures, and considerable consequences for certain research endeavors. Undoubtedly, there will be substantial impact on the physical and mental well-being of health care practitioners across specialties. Coordinated efforts and clear lines of communication between the Department of Plastic Surgery and its faculty and trainees allowed a concerted effort toward the immediate challenge of tempering the spread of coronavirus disease of 2019 and preserving structure and throughput for education and research. Adaptation and creativity have ultimately allowed for early rebooting of in-person clinical and surgical practice. The authors present their coordinated efforts and lessons gleaned from their experience to inform their community's preparedness as this formidable challenge evolves.

Optimizing the operation of an electrodiagnostic laboratory during the COVID-19 pandemic: A 6-month single-center experience.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: The initial surge of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in early 2020 led to widespread cancellation of elective medical procedures in the United States, including nonurgent outpatient and inpatient electrodiagnostic (EDx) studies. As certain regions later showed a downtrend in daily new cases, EDx laboratories have reopened under the guidance of the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM). In our reopening experience guided by the AANEM, we measured relevant outcomes to determine further workflow adaptations. We aimed to detail our experience and share the lessons learned. METHODS: We reviewed the clinical volumes, billing data, diagnosis distributions, and rates of COVID-19 exposure and transmission among patients and staff in our EDx laboratory during the first 6 months of reopening, starting on June 1, 2020. For context, we detailed the recent AANEM guidelines we adopted at our laboratory, supplemented by other consensus statements. RESULTS: We completed 816 outpatient studies from June 1 to December 1, 2020, reaching 97% of the total volume and 97% of total billing compared with the same time period in 2019. The average relative value units per study were similar. There were no major shifts in diagnosis distributions. We completed 10 of 12 requested inpatient studies during this period. There were no known COVID-19 transmissions between patients and staff. DISCUSSION: Our experience suggests that it is possible to safely operate an EDx laboratory under the guidance of the AANEM and other experts, with clinical volume and billing rates comparable to pre-pandemic baselines.

Comparing outcomes for non-metastatic rectal cancer in academic vs. community centers: A propensity-matched analysis of the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the impact of hospital academic status on outcomes following rectal cancer surgery. We compare these outcomes for nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma at academic versus community institutions. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (2010-2016) was queried for patients with nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent resection. Propensity score matching was performed across facility cohorts to balance confounding covariates. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox-proportional hazards regression were used to analyze survival, other short and long-term outcomes were analyzed by way of logistic regression. RESULTS: After matching, 15,096 patients were included per cohort. Academic centers were associated with significantly decreased odds of conversion and positive margins with significantly increased odds of ≥12 regional nodes examined. Academic programs also had decreased odds of 30 and 90-day mortality and decreased 5-year mortality hazard. After matching for facility volume, no significant differences in outcomes between centers was seen. CONCLUSIONS: No difference between academic and community centers in outcomes following surgery for non-metastatic rectal cancer was seen after matching for facility procedural volume.

Optimal care and survival for signet-ring cell and non-signet-ring cell gastric cancer are more achievable at academic cancer centers.

BACKGROUND: Western literature lacks large-scale population studies comparing the influence of academic and high-volume (HV) versus low-volume (LV) cancer centers on gastric cancer oncologic outcomes. METHODS: The National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2016 was used. RESULTS: 22871 patients were studied. Patients with stage III signet-ring cell gastric carcinoma (SRGC) received neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) more frequently at academic and HV comprehensive cancer centers (OR: 4.27 and 2.42; p < 0.0001 and 0.009) compared to community centers. Patients with stage III non-SRGC (NSRGC) had a 2.4 times higher odds of receiving NAT at academic centers. The R1 resection rate for NSRGC was lower at academic centers (OR: 0.67; p = 0.0018). Lymph node harvest ≥15 nodes was 1.6 and 1.9 times higher at academic centers for NSRGC and SRGC, respectively. Patients treated at academic centers had a significantly improved overall survival (OS). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment at academic centers is associated with significant improvements in oncologic metrics and OS.

Publicly Reported Patient Satisfaction Scores in Academic Otolaryngology Departments.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Despite controversy regarding their impact and validity, there is a rising national focus on patient satisfaction scores (PSS). We describe the landscape of online PSS as posted by academic otolaryngology practices. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: Websites of academic otolaryngology programs were reviewed for PSS scores, provider type, and geographic location. Gender was determined by picture or profile pronouns. Years of experience were determined by year of initial American Board of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery certification. We defined PSS derived from Press-Ganey or Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys as "standardized PSS". We determined potential associations between provider characteristics and standardized PSS. RESULTS: Out of 115 Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery academic programs, 40 (35%) posted a total of 64,638 online PSS surveys (nonstandardized plus standardized) of 507 unique otolaryngology care providers. Standardized PSS were posted for 473 providers (370 [78%] male; 446 physicians; 27 advanced practice providers). Median overall standardized PSS was 4.8 (interquartile range 4.7-4.9; range 3.8-5.0). PSS were similar between gender, provider type, and years of experience. Male providers had more surveys than female providers (149 vs. 93; P < .01). There was a linear relationship between number of surveys and years of experience (P < .01), but no relationship between number of surveys and overall standardized PSS. CONCLUSIONS: Patient satisfaction with otolaryngology providers at academic institutions is consistently high, as demonstrated by high online PSS with little variability. The limited variation in PSS may limit their usefulness in differentiating providers and quality of care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 131:2204-2210, 2021.

ReCiter: An open source, identity-driven, authorship prediction algorithm optimized for academic institutions.

Academic institutions need to maintain publication lists for thousands of faculty and other scholars. Automated tools are essential to minimize the need for direct feedback from the scholars themselves who are practically unable to commit necessary effort to keep the data accurate. In relying exclusively on clustering techniques, author disambiguation applications fail to satisfy key use cases of academic institutions. Algorithms can perfectly group together a set of publications authored by a common individual, but, for them to be useful to an academic institution, they need to programmatically and recurrently map articles to thousands of scholars of interest en masse. Consistent with a savvy librarian's approach for generating a scholar's list of publications, identity-driven authorship prediction is the process of using information about a scholar to quantify the likelihood that person wrote certain articles. ReCiter is an application that attempts to do exactly that. ReCiter uses institutionally-maintained identity data such as name of department and year of terminal degree to predict which articles a given scholar has authored. To compute the overall score for a given candidate article from PubMed (and, optionally, Scopus), ReCiter uses: up to 12 types of commonly available, identity data; whether other members of a cluster have been accepted or rejected by a user; and the average score of a cluster. In addition, ReCiter provides scoring and qualitative evidence supporting why particular articles are suggested. This context and confidence scoring allows curators to more accurately provide feedback on behalf of scholars. To help users to more efficiently curate publication lists, we used a support vector machine analysis to optimize the scoring of the ReCiter algorithm. In our analysis of a diverse test group of 500 scholars at an academic private medical center, ReCiter correctly predicted 98% of their publications in PubMed.

Epidemiology, Infection Prevention, Testing Data, and Clinical Outcomes of COVID-19 on Five Inpatient Psychiatric Units in a large Academic Medical Center.

Inpatient psychiatric facilities can face significant challenges in containing infectious outbreaks during the COVID-19 pandemic. The main objective of this study was to characterize the epidemiology, testing data, and containment protocols of COVID-19 in a large academic medical center during the height of the COVID-19 outbreak. A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on hospitalized individuals on five inpatient psychiatric units from March 1st to July 8th, 2020. Demographic data collected include age, race, gender, ethnicity, diagnosis, and admission status (one or multiple admissions). In addition, a Gantt chart was used to assess outbreak data and timelines for one unit. Testing data was collected for patients admitted to inpatient psychiatric units, emergency room visits, and employees. 964 individuals were hospitalized psychiatrically. The study population included ethnically diverse patients with various mental illnesses. We also describe infection prevention strategies, screening, and triage protocols utilized to safely continue patient flow during and beyond the study period with a low patient and employee infection rate. In summary, our study suggests that early implementation of triage, screening, extensive testing, and unit-specific interventions can help prevent and contain the spread of COVID-19 in inpatient psychiatric units and help facilitate safe delivery of care during a pandemic.

Strategic Planning for the Chest Clinician.

Having a strategic plan is important to reach organizational goals. Equally important is knowing how to develop and execute that plan. Also, such plans evolve and are executed in the context of the organization's culture, which is another critical success element. Using a garden metaphor, the arrangement of the plants in the garden is like the strategy. With a good strategy, the arrangement of the plants will be appealing. But the soil in the garden is the organizational culture. If the soil is fouled, no plants will grow, regardless of how appealing the garden plan. This "How We Do It" paper addresses the issue of developing and executing a strategy and then, in a companion piece, the related process of envisioning and cultivating an organizational culture. The strategic planning discussion invokes a "real-win-worth" paradigm to address the real-world case of assuring uniform, best-in-class ICU outcomes across multiple ICUs in a large academic medical center system.

Creating a Program to Support Registering and Reporting Clinical Trials at Johns Hopkins University.

PROBLEM: The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) require that many clinical trials register and report results on ClinicalTrials.gov. Noncompliance with these policies denies research participants and scientists access to potentially relevant findings and could lead to monetary penalties or loss of funding. After discovering hundreds of potentially noncompliant trials affiliated with the institution, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (JHUSOM) sought to develop a program to support research teams with registration and reporting requirements. APPROACH: JHUSOM conducted a baseline assessment of institutional compliance in 2015, launched the ClinicalTrials.gov Program in June 2016, and expanded the program to the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center in April 2018. The program is innovative in its comprehensive approach, and it was among the first to bring a large number of trials into compliance. OUTCOMES: From September 2015 to September 2020, JHUSOM brought completed and ongoing trials into compliance with FDAAA and NIH policies and maintained almost perfect compliance for new trials. During this period, the proportion of trials potentially noncompliant with the FDAAA decreased from 44% (339/774) to 2% (32/1,304). NEXT STEPS: JHUSOM continues to develop and evaluate tools and procedures that facilitate trial registration and results reporting. In collaboration with other academic medical centers, JHUSOM plans to share resources and to identify and disseminate best practices. This report identifies practical lessons for institutions that might develop similar programs.