Age-Related Disparities in Trauma Center Access for Severe Head Injuries Following the Release of the Updated Field Triage Guidelines

Objective: In 2006, the American College of Surgeons’ Committee on Trauma and the Center for Disease Control released field triage guidelines with special consideration for older adults. Additional considerations for direct transport to a Level I or II trauma center (TC) were added in 2011, reflecting perceived undertriage to TCs for older adults. We examined whether age-based disparities in TC care for severe head injury decreased following introduction of the 2011 revisions. Methods: A pre-post design analyzing the 2009 and 2012 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Emergency Department Databases (SEDD) and State Inpatient Databases (SID) with multivariable logistic regressions considered changes in (1) the trauma designation of the emergency department where treatment was initiated and (2) transfer to a TC following initial treatment at a non-TC. Results: Compared with adults aged 18–44 years, after multivariable adjustment, in both years TC care was less likely for adults aged 45–64 years (OR: 0.76 in 2009 and 0.74 in 2012), aged 65–84 years (OR: 0.61 and 0.59), and aged 85+ years (OR: 0.53 and 0.56). Between 2009 and 2012, the likelihood of TC care increased for all age groups, with the largest increase among those aged 85+ years (OR = 1.18), which was statistically different (p = .02) from the increase among adults aged 18–44 years (OR = 1.12). The analysis of transfers yielded similar results. Conclusions: Although patterns of increased TC treatment for all groups with severe head trauma indicate improvements, age-based disparities persisted

The Role of Medical Education in Reducing Health Care Disparities: The First Ten Years of the UCLA/Drew Medical Education Program

BACKGROUND: The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)/Charles R. Drew University Medical Education Program was developed to train physicians for practice in underserved areas. The UCLA/Drew Medical Education Program students receive basic science instruction at UCLA and complete their required clinical rotations in South Los Angeles, an impoverished urban community. We have previously shown that, in comparison to their UCLA counterparts, students in the Drew program had greater odds of maintaining their commitment to medically disadvantaged populations over the course of medical education. OBJECTIVE: To examine the independent association of graduation from the UCLA/Drew program with subsequent choice of physician practice location. We hypothesized that participation in the UCLA/Drew program predicts future practice in medically disadvantaged areas, controlling for student demographics such as race/ethnicity and gender, indicators of socioeconomic status, and specialty choice. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Graduates (1,071) of the UCLA School of Medicine and the UCLA/Drew Medical Education Program from 1985–1995, practicing in California in 2003 based on the address listed in the American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile. MEASUREMENTS: Physician address was geocoded to a California Medical Service Study Area (MSSA). A medically disadvantaged community was defined as meeting any one of the following criteria: (a) federally designated HPSA or MUA; (b) rural area; (c) high minority area; or (d) high poverty area. RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of UCLA/Drew graduates are located in medically disadvantaged areas, in contrast to 26.1% of UCLA graduates. In multivariate analyses, underrepresented minority race/ethnicity (OR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.10–2.25) and participation in the Drew program (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.59–3.83) were independent predictors of future practice in disadvantaged areas. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians who graduated from the UCLA/Drew Medical Education Program have higher odds of practicing in underserved areas than those who completed the traditional UCLA curriculum, even after controlling for other factors such as race/ethnicity. The association between participation in the UCLA/Drew Medical Education Program and physician practice location suggests that medical education programs may reinforce student goals to practice in disadvantaged communities

The Effect of Urban Street Gang Densities on Small Area Homicide Incidence in a Large Metropolitan County, 1994–2002

The presence of street gangs has been hypothesized as influencing overall levels of violence in urban communities through a process of gun–drug diffusion and cross-type homicide. This effect is said to act independently of other known correlates of violence, i.e., neighborhood poverty. To test this hypothesis, we independently assessed the impact of population exposure to local street gang densities on 8-year homicide rates in small areas of Los Angeles County, California. Homicide data from the Los Angeles County Coroners Office were analyzed with original field survey data on street gang locations, while controlling for the established covariates of community homicide rates. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses explicated strong relationships between homicide rates, gang density, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic structure. Street gang densities alone had cumulative effects on small area homicide rates. Local gang densities, along with high school dropout rates, high unemployment rates, racial and ethnic concentration, and higher population densities, together explained 90% of the variation in local 8-year homicide rates. Several other commonly considered covariates were insignificant in the model. Urban environments with higher densities of street gangs exhibited higher overall homicide rates, independent of other community covariates of homicide. The unique nature of street gang killings and their greater potential to influence future local rates of violence suggests that more direct public health interventions are needed alongside traditional criminal justice mechanisms to combat urban violence and homicides

Historical Perspectives on the Care of African-Americans with Cardiovascular Disease

Advances in medicine and surgery over the last 100 years have resulted in improved treatments for all forms of disease. Unfortunately, African Americans have not benefited equally when compared with Whites. African Americans have had an overall death rate that is 1.6 times higher than that of the White population. When the age-adjusted death rates for the ten leading causes of death in the United States in 1950 and 1995 are compared, the mortality rates have declined. However, among African Americans the mortality rates for cancer, diabetes, suicide, cirrhosis of the liver, and homicide were actually higher in 1995 than in 1950. When heart disease, the leading cause of death, is considered, there have been important reductions in mortality for the entire population during the past 50 years. However, the racial gap between African Americans and Whites is actually wider today than it was in 1950. The African American/White ratio of age-adjusted mortality rates for heart disease was 1.26 in 1950 and 1.58 in 1995 [1]

Historical Perspectives on the Care of African-Americans with Cardiovascular Disease

Advances in medicine and surgery over the last 100 years have resulted in improved treatments for all forms of disease. Unfortunately, African Americans have not benefited equally when compared with Whites. African Americans have had an overall death rate that is 1.6 times higher than that of the White population. When the age-adjusted death rates for the ten leading causes of death in the United States in 1950 and 1995 are compared, the mortality rates have declined. However, among African Americans the mortality rates for cancer, diabetes, suicide, cirrhosis of the liver, and homicide were actually higher in 1995 than in 1950. When heart disease, the leading cause of death, is considered, there have been important reductions in mortality for the entire population during the past 50 years. However, the racial gap between African Americans and Whites is actually wider today than it was in 1950. The African American/White ratio of age-adjusted mortality rates for heart disease was 1.26 in 1950 and 1.58 in 1995 [1]