The Relationship Between Employment Arbitration and Workplace Dispute Resolution Procedures

Published in cooperation with the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolutio

Balancing Efficiency, Equity, and Voice in Workplace Resolution Procedures

Systems for resolving workplace disputes are very important to workers and firms, and have been the subject of much debate. In the United States, traditional unionized grievance procedures, emerging nonunion dispute resolution systems, and the court-based system for resolving employment law disputes have all been criticized. Much of the existing debate on workplace dispute resolution, however, has been atheoretical, with a focus on techniques of dispute resolution rather than the goals of the system. What is missing from the debate are fundamental standards for comparing and evaluating dispute resolutions systems. In this paper, we develop efficiency, equity, and voice as these standards. Unionized, nonunion, and employment law procedures are then evaluated against these three standards.

Comparison of Evaluations for Heart Transplant Before Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device and Subsequent Receipt of Transplant at Transplant vs Nontransplant Centers

IMPORTANCE: In 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services revised its national coverage determination, removing the requirement to obtain review from a Medicare-approved heart transplant center to implant a durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) for bridge-to-transplant (BTT) intent at an LVAD-only center. The association between center-level transplant availability and access to heart transplant, the gold-standard therapy for advanced heart failure (HF), is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of center transplant availability with LVAD implant strategies and subsequent heart transplant following LVAD implant before the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services policy change. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs multicenter US registry database was conducted from April 1, 2012, to June 30, 2020. The population included patients with HF receiving a primary durable LVAD. EXPOSURES: LVAD center transplant availability (LVAD/transplant vs LVAD only). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were implant strategy as BTT and subsequent transplant by 2 years. Covariates that might affect listing strategy and outcomes were included (eg, patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities) in multivariable models. Parameters for BTT listing were estimated using logistic regression with center-level random effects and for receipt of a transplant using a Cox proportional hazards regression model with death as a competing event. RESULTS: The sample included 22 221 LVAD recipients with a median age of 59.0 (IQR, 50.0-67.0) years, of whom 17 420 (78.4%) were male and 3156 (14.2%) received implants at LVAD-only centers. Receiving an LVAD at an LVAD/transplant center was associated with a 79% increased adjusted odds of BTT LVAD designation (odds ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.35-2.38; P \u3c .001). The 2-year transplant rate following LVAD implant was 25.6% at LVAD/transplant centers and 11.9% at LVAD-only centers. There was an associated 33% increased rate of transplant at LVAD/transplant centers compared with LVAD-only centers (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.17-1.51) with a similar hazard for death at 2 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90-1.08). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Receiving an LVAD at an LVAD-transplant center was associated with increased odds of BTT intent at implant and subsequent transplant receipt for patients at 2 years. The findings of this study suggest that Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services policy change may have the unintended consequence of further increasing inequities in access to transplant among patients at LVAD-only centers

Global patient outcomes after elective surgery: prospective cohort study in 27 low-, middle- and high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: As global initiatives increase patient access to surgical treatments, there remains a need to understand the adverse effects of surgery and define appropriate levels of perioperative care. METHODS: We designed a prospective international 7-day cohort study of outcomes following elective adult inpatient surgery in 27 countries. The primary outcome was in-hospital complications. Secondary outcomes were death following a complication (failure to rescue) and death in hospital. Process measures were admission to critical care immediately after surgery or to treat a complication and duration of hospital stay. A single definition of critical care was used for all countries. RESULTS: A total of 474 hospitals in 19 high-, 7 middle- and 1 low-income country were included in the primary analysis. Data included 44 814 patients with a median hospital stay of 4 (range 2-7) days. A total of 7508 patients (16.8%) developed one or more postoperative complication and 207 died (0.5%). The overall mortality among patients who developed complications was 2.8%. Mortality following complications ranged from 2.4% for pulmonary embolism to 43.9% for cardiac arrest. A total of 4360 (9.7%) patients were admitted to a critical care unit as routine immediately after surgery, of whom 2198 (50.4%) developed a complication, with 105 (2.4%) deaths. A total of 1233 patients (16.4%) were admitted to a critical care unit to treat complications, with 119 (9.7%) deaths. Despite lower baseline risk, outcomes were similar in low- and middle-income compared with high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Poor patient outcomes are common after inpatient surgery. Global initiatives to increase access to surgical treatments should also address the need for safe perioperative care. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN5181700

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). Interpretation: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research