Racial Differences and Injury Pattern Variation: Impact of COVID-19 on a Bronx Trauma Center.

BACKGROUND: New York City (NYC) became the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The Bronx, with the highest rates of poverty and violent crime of all NYC boroughs and a large Black and Hispanic population, was at increased risk of COVID-19 and its sequelae. We aimed to identify temporal associations among COVID-19 and trauma admission volume, demographics, and mechanism of injury (MOI). METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was conducted from a Level II trauma center in the Bronx. January 1st-September 30th for both 2019 (Pre-COVID) and 2020 (COVID) were compared. Pre-COVID and COVID cohorts were subdivided into EARLY (March-May) and LATE (June-September) subgroups. Demographics and trauma outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Trauma admissions were similar between Pre-COVID and COVID. During COVID, there was an increased percentage of Black patients (Black Hispanic 20.1% vs 15.2% and Black Non-Hispanic 39.4% vs 34.1%, P < .05), younger patients (26-35 years old: 22.6% vs 17.6%, P < .05), and out-of-pocket payors (6.0% vs 1.6%, P < .05). Trauma severity outcomes were mixed-some measures supported increased severity; others showed no difference or decreased severity. During COVID, there was a rise in total penetrating injuries (27.4% vs 20.8%, P < .05), MVC (13.2% vs 7.1, P < .05), and firearm injuries (11.6% vs 6.0%, P < .05). Additionally, during LATE COVID, there was a resurgence of total penetrating, total blunt, MVC, falls, cyclists/pedestrians struck, and firearm injuries. DISCUSSION: Our results emphasize MOI variations and racial differences of trauma admissions to a Level II trauma center in the Bronx during COVID-19. These findings may help trauma centers plan during pandemics and encourage outreach between trauma centers and community level organizations following future healthcare disasters.

A central support system can facilitate implementation and sustainability of a Classroom-based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) in Genomics.

In their 2012 report, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology advocated "replacing standard science laboratory courses with discovery-based research courses"-a challenging proposition that presents practical and pedagogical difficulties. In this paper, we describe our collective experiences working with the Genomics Education Partnership, a nationwide faculty consortium that aims to provide undergraduates with a research experience in genomics through a scheduled course (a classroom-based undergraduate research experience, or CURE). We examine the common barriers encountered in implementing a CURE, program elements of most value to faculty, ways in which a shared core support system can help, and the incentives for and rewards of establishing a CURE on our diverse campuses. While some of the barriers and rewards are specific to a research project utilizing a genomics approach, other lessons learned should be broadly applicable. We find that a central system that supports a shared investigation can mitigate some shortfalls in campus infrastructure (such as time for new curriculum development, availability of IT services) and provides collegial support for change. Our findings should be useful for designing similar supportive programs to facilitate change in the way we teach science for undergraduates.

A course-based research experience: how benefits change with increased investment in instructional time.

There is widespread agreement that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs should provide undergraduates with research experience. Practical issues and limited resources, however, make this a challenge. We have developed a bioinformatics project that provides a course-based research experience for students at a diverse group of schools and offers the opportunity to tailor this experience to local curriculum and institution-specific student needs. We assessed both attitude and knowledge gains, looking for insights into how students respond given this wide range of curricular and institutional variables. While different approaches all appear to result in learning gains, we find that a significant investment of course time is required to enable students to show gains commensurate to a summer research experience. An alumni survey revealed that time spent on a research project is also a significant factor in the value former students assign to the experience one or more years later. We conclude: 1) implementation of a bioinformatics project within the biology curriculum provides a mechanism for successfully engaging large numbers of students in undergraduate research; 2) benefits to students are achievable at a wide variety of academic institutions; and 3) successful implementation of course-based research experiences requires significant investment of instructional time for students to gain full benefit.