The Use of Diabetes Technology to Address Inequity in Health Outcomes: Limitations and Opportunities.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The management of diabetes has been revolutionized by the introduction of novel technological treatments and modalities of care, such as continuous glucose monitoring, insulin pump therapy, and telehealth. While these technologies have demonstrated improvement in health outcomes, it remains unclear whether they have reduced inequities from racial/ethnic minority or socioeconomic status. We review the current literature to discuss evidence of benefit, current limitations, and future opportunities of diabetes technologies. FINDINGS: While there is ample evidence of the health and psychological benefit of diabetes technologies in large populations of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, there remain wide disparities in the use of diabetes technologies, which may be perpetuating or widening inequities. Multilevel barriers include inequitable prescribing practices, lack of support for social determinants of health, mismatch of patient preferences and care models, and cost. We provide a review of disparities in diabetes technology use, possible root causes of continued inequity in outcomes, and insight into ways to overcome remaining gaps.

Outcomes following robot-assisted versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: the New York State experience.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) represents more than half of all bariatric procedures in the USA, and robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) is becoming increasingly common. There is a paucity of evidence regarding postoperative surgical outcomes (> 30 days) in RSG patients, especially as these patients move between multiple hospital systems. METHODS: Using 2012-2018 New York State's inpatient and ambulatory data from the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System, bivariate and multivariate analyses were employed to examine patient long-term outcomes, postoperative complications, and charges following RSG versus LSG in unmatched and propensity score-matched (PSM) samples. RESULTS: Among the 72,157 minimally invasive sleeve gastrectomies identified, 2365 (2.6%) were RSGs. In the PSM sample (2365 RSG matched to 23,650 LSG), RSG cases were more likely to be converted to an open procedure (2.3% vs 0.2% LSG patients, p < 0.01) and had a longer mean length of stay (LOS; 2.1 vs. 1.8 days LSG, p < 0.01). Postoperative complications were not different between RSG and LSG patients, but the proportion of emergency room visits resulting in inpatient readmissions was higher among RSG patients (5.5% vs. 4.2% in LSG patients, p < .01). Among the super obese (body mass index ≥ 50) patients, conversions to open procedure and LOS were also significantly higher for RSG versus LSG cases. Average hospital charges for the index admission ($47,623 RSG vs $35,934 LSG) and cumulative changes for 1 year from the date of surgery ($57,484 RSG vs $43,769 LSG) were > 30% higher for RSG patients. CONCLUSIONS: RSG patients were more likely to have conversions to open procedures, longer postoperative stay, readmissions, and higher charges for both the index admission and beyond, compared to LSG patients. No clear advantages emerged for the utilization of the robotic platform for either average risk or extremely obese patients.

Is New York State good at managing hollow viscus injury?

BACKGROUND: There are an estimated 100,000 cases of abdominal injury (ABI) in the USA, annually resulting in over $12 billion in direct medical cost and $18 billion in lost productivity. This study assesses the timeliness, safety, and efficacy of the surgical management of abdominal injuries (ABIs), hollow viscus injuries (HVIs), and colonic injuries (CIs) for patients residing in New York State (NYS). METHODS: Using data from NYS's Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS), we identified all trauma patients with ABI admitted between 2006 and 2015. We subdivided ABI into HVI and CI using diagnosis and procedure codes and examined processes of care and outcomes adjusting for patient characteristics, injury severity score, structural, and process indicators. RESULTS: We identified 31,043 hospitalized patients with ABI, 71% were incurred from blunt forces. Most patients with ABI (72%) were treated at a Level I/II trauma center (TC) and 7% patients were transferred to Level I/II TC. Failure to be treated at Level I/II TC was associated with 16% increased hazard of death. HVI was diagnosed in 23% of ABI patients (n = 7294); 18% experienced delayed hollow viscus repair (dHVR); dHVR was associated with a 76% increased hazard of death. CI was diagnosed in 9% of ABI patients (n = 2921) and 18% experienced dHVR. Seventy-five percent of CI were repaired primarily (n = 1354). Less than 37% of stomas were reversed by 4 years of index trauma. CONCLUSION: Most abdominal trauma in NYS was caused by motor vehicle accidents, falls, and assault. dHVR and not being treated at Level I/II TC were associated with worse outcomes. More research is needed to reduce under-triage and delays in the operative treatment of blunt abdominal trauma.

A qualitative analysis of Black men's attitudes toward obesity and bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is a safe and highly effective treatment for morbid obesity and related co-morbidities. While MBS access and insurance coverage have greatly improved, sex and racial disparities remain in utilization of MBS. OBJECTIVE: To identify novel intrinsic factors that may explain Black underutilization of surgical treatments for weight management. SETTING: This study was conducted in metropolitan communities of Western New York. METHODS: We conducted semistructured face-to-face interviews with 27 adult Black men with a history of obesity and at least 2 obesity-related conditions (diabetes, hypertension, and/or chronic kidney disease [CKD]), about their attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and habits related to obesity and obesity management. Interview transcripts were reviewed using thematic analysis for patterns and themes. RESULTS: Most participants did not perceive obesity as a serious health condition and those who had weight-loss goals did not aim for a healthy body mass index (BMI). Trust and respectful communication with physician were very important in making healthcare decisions. MBS was perceived as extreme and dangerous option for weight loss, and only participants with severe symptoms such as chronic pain were open to discussing MBS with their providers. Participants acknowledged lack of role models of similar background who had successfully undergone MBS for obesity. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified misinformation about risks and benefits of MBS and lack of community role models as important factors contributing to Black men's unwillingness to consider MBS. Further research is needed to facilitate patient-provider communication about weight and improve provider's ability and motivation for weight management in primary care settings.