Parental leave, childcare policies, and workplace bias for hepatology professionals: A national survey.

BACKGROUND: The presence of workplace bias around child-rearing and inadequate parental leave may negatively impact childbearing decisions and sex equity in hepatology. This study aimed to understand the influence of parental leave and child-rearing on career advancement in hepatology. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of physician members of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) was distributed through email listserv in January 2021. The 33-item survey included demographic questions, questions about bias, altering training, career plans, family planning, parental leave, and work accommodations. RESULTS: Among 199 US physician respondents, 65.3% were women, and 83.4% (n = 166) were attendings. Sex and racial differences were reported in several domains, including paid leave, perceptions of bias, and child-rearing. Most women (79.3%) took fewer than the recommended 12 paid weeks of parental leave for their first child (average paid leave 7.5 wk for women and 1.7 for men). A majority (75.2%) of women reported workplace discrimination, including 83.3% of Black and 62.5% of Hispanic women. Twenty percent of women were asked about their/their partners' pregnancy intentions or child-rearing plans during interviews for training. Women were more likely to alter career plans due to child-rearing (30.0% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.030). Women were also more likely to delay having children than men (69.5% vs.35.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Women reported sex and maternity bias in the workplace and during training interviews, which was more frequently experienced by Black and Hispanic women. As two-thirds of women had children during training, it is a particularly influential time to reevaluate programmatic support to address long-term gender disparities in career advancement.

Five Strategies Leaders in Academic Medicine Can Implement Now to Enhance Gender Equity.

Abundant disparities for women in medicine contribute to many women physicians considering leaving medicine. There is a strong financial and ethical case for leaders in academic medicine to focus on strategies to improve retention. This article focuses on five immediate actions that leaders can take to enhance gender equity and improve career satisfaction for all members of the workplace.

The impact of COVID-19 on endoscopy and cancer screening: a focus on access and equity.

The SARS-CoV2 pandemic has had a profound and lasting impact on healthcare delivery. Gastrointestinal endoscopy services were limited during the early phases of the pandemic, which has resulted in ongoing procedural backlog. Procedural delays have had continuing effects including delayed colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnoses and exacerbation of existing disparities in the CRC-screening and treatment pathways. In this review, we outline these effects as well as the variety of strategies that have been proposed to eliminate this backlog, including increased endoscopy hours, re-triaging of referrals, and alternative CRC-screening strategies.

Associations of Race and Ethnicity with Hepatocellular Carcinoma, Decompensation, and Mortality in US Veterans with Cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with cirrhosis, it remains unclear whether there are racial/ethnic differences in cirrhosis complications and mortality. We examined the associations between race/ethnicity and risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cirrhosis decompensation, and all-cause mortality overall and by cirrhosis etiology. METHODS: US Veterans diagnosed with cirrhosis from 2001 to 2014 (n = 120,992), due to hepatitis C virus (HCV; n = 55,814), alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD; n = 36,323), hepatitis B virus (HBV; n = 1,972), nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD; n = 17,789), or other (n = 9,094), were followed through 2020 for incident HCC (n = 10,242), cirrhosis decompensation (n = 27,887), and mortality (n = 81,441). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, Hispanic patients had higher risk for HCC overall (aHR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.24-1.41) and by cirrhosis etiology, particularly for ALD- (aHR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.42-1.87) and NAFLD-cirrhosis (aHR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.41-2.20), whereas non-Hispanic Black patients had lower HCC risk in ALD- (aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.98) and NAFLD-cirrhosis (aHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33-0.89). Asian patients had higher HCC risk (aHR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.29-2.23), driven by HCV- and HBV-cirrhosis. Non-Hispanic Black patients had lower risk for cirrhosis decompensation overall (aHR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.68-0.74) and by cirrhosis etiology. There was lower risk for mortality among all other racial/ethnic groups compared with non-Hispanic White patients. CONCLUSIONS: Race/ethnicity is an important predictor for risk of developing HCC, decompensation, and mortality. IMPACT: Future research should examine factors underlying these racial/ethnic differences to inform prevention, screening, and treatment for patients with cirrhosis.

Association of Body Surface Area With Access to Deceased Donor Liver Transplant and Novel Allocation Policies.

Importance: Small waitlist candidates are significantly less likely than larger candidates to receive a liver transplant. Objective: To investigate the magnitude of the size disparity and test potential policy solutions. Design, Setting, and Participants: A decision analytical model was generated to match liver transplant donors to waitlist candidates based on predefined body surface area (BSA) ratio limits (donor BSA divided by recipient BSA). Participants included adult deceased liver transplant donors and waitlist candidates in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database from June 18, 2013, to March 20, 2020. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to September 2021. Exposures: Candidates were categorized into 6 groups according to BSA from smallest (group 1) to largest (group 6). Waitlist outcomes were examined. A match run was created for each donor under the current acuity circle liver allocation policy, and the proportion of candidates eligible for a liver based on BSA ratio was calculated. Novel allocation models were then tested. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time on the waitlist, assigned Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and proportion of patients undergoing a transplant were compared by BSA group. Modeling under the current allocation policies was used to determine baseline access to transplant by group. Simulation of novel allocation policies was performed to examine change in access. Results: There were 41 341 donors (24 842 [60.1%] male and 16 499 [39.9%] female) and 84 201 waitlist candidates (53 724 [63.8%] male and 30 477 [36.2%] female) in the study. The median age of the donors was 42 years (IQR, 28-55) and waitlist candidates, 57 years (IQR, 50-63). Females were overrepresented in the 2 smallest BSA groups (7100 [84.0%] and 7922 [61.1%] in groups 1 and 2, respectively). For each increase in group number, waitlist time decreased (234 days [IQR, 48-700] for group 1 vs 179 days [IQR, 26-503] for group 6; P < .001) and the proportion of the group undergoing transplant likewise improved (3890 [46%] in group 1 vs 4932 [57%] in group 6; P < .001). The smallest 2 groups of candidates were disadvantaged under the current acuity circle allocation model, with 37% and 7.4% fewer livers allocated relative to their proportional representation on the waitlist. Allocation of the smallest 10% of donors (by BSA) to the smallest 15% of candidates overcame this disparity, as did performing split liver transplants. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, liver waitlist candidates with the smallest BSAs had a disadvantage due to size. Prioritizing allocation of smaller liver donors to smaller candidates may help overcome this disparity.

Analysis of Speaker Introduction Formality by Gender at the American College of Gastroenterology 2020 Annual Scientific Meeting.

BACKGROUND: Gender-based differences in the use of professional titles during speaker introductions have been described in other medical specialties. AIMS: Our primary aim was to assess gender-based differences in the formality of speaker introductions at the American College of Gastroenterology 2020 Virtual Annual Scientific Meeting. Our secondary aim was to assess gender-based differences in the formality of speaker self-introductions. METHODS: Reviewed presentations from the American College of Gastroenterology Annual Meeting for gender-based differences in professional title use during speaker introductions and self-introductions. RESULTS: Speakers included 29 women (37.2%) and 49 men (62.8%). We found no significant gender differences in the use of professional titles by introducers (t(67) = - 0.775, p = 0.441) or in self-introductions (36.4% of women vs. 41.9% of men, t(63) = 0.422, p = 0.674). CONCLUSION: The lack of gender differences in professional title use may represent a novel advantage of virtual meeting formats or suggest increased attention to gender bias in introductions.

Real-World Data on the Impact of COVID-19 on Endoscopic Procedural Delays.

INTRODUCTION: The initial surge of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic prompted national recommendations to delay nonurgent endoscopic procedures. The objective of this study was to provide real-world data on the impact of COVID-19 on endoscopic procedures in a safety-net healthcare system and cancer center affiliated with a tertiary academic center. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used a combination of electronic health record data and a prospective data tool created to track endoscopy procedures throughout COVID-19 to describe patient and procedural characteristics of endoscopic procedures delayed during the initial COVID-19 surge. RESULTS: Of the 480 patients identified, the median age was 57 years (interquartile range 46-66), 55% (n = 262) were male, and 59% self-identified as white. Colonoscopy was the most common type of delayed procedure (49%), followed by combined esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy (22%), and EGD alone (20%). Colorectal cancer screening was the most common indication for delayed colonoscopy (35%), and evaluation of suspected bleeding (30%) was the most common indication for delayed combined EGD and colonoscopy. To date, 46% (223/480) of delayed cases have been completed with 12 colorectal, pancreatic, and stomach cancers diagnosed. Sociodemographic factors, procedure type, and sedation type were not significantly associated with endoscopy completion. The median time to endoscopy after delayed procedure was 88 days (interquartile range 63-119) with no differences by procedure type. DISCUSSION: To minimize potential losses to follow-up, delayed, or missed diagnoses and to reduce progression of gastrointestinal diseases, all efforts should be used to ensure follow-up in those whose endoscopic procedures were delayed because of COVID-19.

Management of code status in the periendoscopic period: a national survey of current practices and beliefs of U.S. gastroenterologists.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study aims to assess current practices and perspectives of gastroenterologists on approaches to code status before inpatient endoscopy. METHODS: Self-reported data were obtained through a voluntary, anonymous survey of gastroenterologists and gastroenterology trainees in the United States. The survey assessed respondents' approach to, beliefs, and knowledge regarding inpatient periprocedural code status discussions. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-six gastroenterologists and 83 trainees completed the survey. For patients with an existing do not resuscitate (DNR) order, respondents reversed the code status before endoscopy either all (40.8%, n = 212) or most of the time (18.3%, n = 95). When asked their personal opinion, 32.6% (n =169) supported automatic DNR reversal to full resuscitation attempt during a procedure, 18.5% (n = 96) supported that DNR orders could be sustained, and 48.7% (n = 253) supported offering limited resuscitation. Many gastroenterologists were unaware of institutional (40.7%, n = 211) or national (80.7%, n = 419) policies, and a majority reported that a gastroenterology-specific guideline would be helpful (88.6%, n = 460). CONCLUSIONS: Although most of the gastroenterologists reverse DNR orders more than 75% of the time before endoscopy, many also believe patients should be allowed to remain DNR during a procedure and supported a third option for limited resuscitation. Most gastroenterologists were unaware of institutional policies or existing national guidelines. These findings suggest considerable variation in knowledge and current approaches regarding periendoscopic code status reversal.

Impact of exposure to patients with COVID-19 on residents and fellows: an international survey of 1420 trainees.

OBJECTIVES: To determine how self-reported level of exposure to patients with novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) affected the perceived safety, training and well-being of residents and fellows. METHODS: We administered an anonymous, voluntary, web-based survey to a convenience sample of trainees worldwide. The survey was distributed by email and social media posts from April 20th to May 11th, 2020. Respondents were asked to estimate the number of patients with COVID-19 they cared for in March and April 2020 (0, 1-30, 31-60, >60). Survey questions addressed (1) safety and access to personal protective equipment (PPE), (2) training and professional development and (3) well-being and burnout. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 1420 trainees (73% residents, 27% fellows), most commonly from the USA (n=670), China (n=150), Saudi Arabia (n=76) and Taiwan (n=75). Trainees who cared for a greater number of patients with COVID-19 were more likely to report limited access to PPE and COVID-19 testing and more likely to test positive for COVID-19. Compared with trainees who did not take care of patients with COVID-19 , those who took care of 1-30 patients (adjusted OR [AOR] 1.80, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.51), 31-60 patients (AOR 3.30, 95% CI 1.86 to 5.88) and >60 patients (AOR 4.03, 95% CI 2.12 to 7.63) were increasingly more likely to report burnout. Trainees were very concerned about the negative effects on training opportunities and professional development irrespective of the number of patients with COVID-19 they cared for. CONCLUSION: Exposure to patients with COVID-19 is significantly associated with higher burnout rates in physician trainees.