Assessment of patient-centered approaches to collect sexual orientation and gender identity information in the emergency department: The equality Study

Importance: Health care and government organizations call for routine collection of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) information in the clinical setting, yet patient preferences for collection methods remain unknown.Objective: To assess of the optimal patient-centered approach for SOGI collection in the emergency department (ED) setting.Design, setting, and participants: This matched cohort study (Emergency Department Query for Patient-Centered Approaches to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity [EQUALITY] Study) of 4 EDs on the east coast of the United States sequentially tested 2 different SOGI collection approaches between February 2016 and March 2017. Multivariable ordered logistic regression was used to assess whether either SOGI collection method was associated with higher patient satisfaction with their ED experience. Eligible adults older than 18 years who identified as a sexual or gender minority (SGM) were enrolled and then matched 1 to 1 by age (aged ≥5 years) and illness severity (Emergency Severity Index score ±1) to patients who identified as heterosexual and cisgender (non-SGM), and to patients whose SOGI information was missing (blank field). Patients who identified as SGM, non-SGM, or had a blank field were invited to complete surveys about their ED visit. Data analysis was conducted from April 2017 to November 2017.Interventions: Two SOGI collection approaches were tested: nurse verbal collection during the clinical encounter vs nonverbal collection during patient registration. The ED physicians, physician assistants, nurses, and registrars received education and training on sexual or gender minority health disparities and terminology prior to and throughout the intervention period.Main outcomes and measures: A detailed survey, developed with input of a stakeholder advisory board, which included a modified Communication Climate Assessment Toolkit score and additional patient satisfaction measures.Results: A total of 540 enrolled patients were analyzed; the mean age was 36.4 years and 66.5% of those who identified their gender were female. Sexual or gender minority patients had significantly better Communication Climate Assessment Toolkit scores with nonverbal registrar form collection compared with nurse verbal collection (mean [SD], 95.6 [11.9] vs 89.5 [20.5]; P = .03). No significant differences between the 2 approaches were found among non-SGM patients (mean [SD], 91.8 [18.9] vs 93.2 [13.6]; P = .59) or those with a blank field (92.7 [15.9] vs 93.6 [14.7]; P = .70). After adjusting for age, race, illness severity, and site, SGM patients had 2.57 (95% CI, 1.13-5.82) increased odds of a better Communication Climate Assessment Toolkit score category during form collection compared with verbal collection.Conclusions and relevance: Sexual or gender minority patients reported greater comfort and improved communication when SOGI was collected via nonverbal self-report. Registrar form collection was the optimal patient-centered method for collecting SOGI information in the ED

Undertriage of older trauma patients: is this a national phenomenon?

Background: Older age is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality after injury. Statewide studies suggest significantly injured patients aged ≥55 y are commonly undertriaged to lower level trauma centers (TCs) or nontrauma centers (NTCs). This study determines whether undertriage is a national phenomenon. Materials and methods: Using the 2011 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample, significantly injured patients aged ≥55 y were identified by diagnosis and new injury severity score (NISS) ≥9. Undertriage was defined as definitive care anywhere other than level I or II TCs. Weighted descriptive analysis compared characteristics of patients by triage status. Multivariable logistic regression determined predictors of undertriage, controlling for hospital characteristics, injury severity, and comorbidities. Results: Of 4,152,541 emergency department (ED) visits meeting inclusion criteria, 74.0% were treated at lower level TCs or NTCs. Patients at level I and II TCs more commonly had NISS ≥9 (22.2% versus 12.3%, P \u3c 0.001), but among all patients with NISS ≥9, 61.3% were undertriaged to a lower level TC or a NTC. On multivariable logistic regression, factors independently associated with higher odds of being undertriaged were increasing age, female gender, and fall-related injuries. A subgroup analysis examined urban and suburban areas only where access to a TC is more likely and found that 55.8% of patients\u27 age were undertriaged. Conclusions: There is substantial undertriage of patients aged ≥55 y nationwide. Over half of significantly injured older patients are not treated at level I or II TCs. The impact of undertriage should be determined to ensure older patients receive trauma care at the optimal sit

Rural risk: Geographic disparities in trauma mortality

Background: Barriers to trauma care for rural populations are well documented, but little is known about the magnitude of urban-rural disparities in injury mortality. This study sought to quantify differences in injury mortality comparing rural and nonrural residents with traumatic injuries.Methods: Using data from the 2009-2010 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample, multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted to estimate odds of death after traumatic injury for rural residents compared with nonrural residents, while controlling for age, sex, injury type and severity, comorbidities, trauma designation, and Census region.Results: Rural residents were 14% more likely to die after traumatic injury compared with nonrural residents (P \u3c .001). Increased odds of death for rural residents were observed at level I (odds ratio = 1.20, P \u3c .001), level II (odds ratio = 1.34, P \u3c .001), and level IV/nontrauma centers (odds ratio = 1.23, P \u3c .001). The disparity was greatest for injuries occurring in the South and Midwest (odds ratio = 1.54, P \u3c .001 and odds ratio = 2.06, P \u3c .001, respectively) and for cases with an injury severity score \u3c9 or unknown severity (odds ratio = 2.09, P \u3c .001 and odds ratio = 1.31, P \u3c .001, respectively).Conclusion: Rural residents are significantly more likely than nonrural residents to die after traumatic injury. This disparity varies by trauma center designation, injury severity, and US Census region. Distance and time to treatment likely play a role in rural injury outcomes, along with regional differences in prehospital care and trauma system organization

Do trauma center levels matter in older isolated hip fracture patients?

Background: Younger, multi-trauma patients have improved survival when treated at a trauma center. Many regions now propose that older patients be triaged to a higher level trauma centers (HLTCs-level I or II) versus lower level trauma centers (LLTCs-level III or nondesignated TC), even for isolated injury, despite the absence of an established benefit in this elderly cohort. We therefore sought to determine if older isolated hip fracture patients have improved survival outcomes based on trauma center level.Methods: A retrospective cohort of 1.07 million patients in The Nationwide Emergency Department Sample from 2006-2010 was used to identify 239,288 isolated hip fracture patients aged ≥65 y. Multivariable logistic regression was performed controlling for patient- and hospital-level variables. The main outcome measures were inhospital mortality and discharge disposition.Results: Unadjusted logistic regression analyses revealed 8% higher odds of mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.16) and 10% lower odds of being discharged home (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.00) among patients admitted to an HLTC versus LLTC. After controlling for patient- and hospital-level factors, neither the odds of mortality (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.97-1.15) nor the odds of discharge to home (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85-1.12) differed significantly between patients treated at an HLTC versus LLTC.Conclusions: Among patients with isolated hip fractures admitted to HLTCs, mortality and discharge disposition do not differ from similar patients admitted to LLTCs. These findings have important implications for trauma systems and triage protocols

Implementing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data Collection in Emergency Departments: Patient and Staff Perspectives

Purpose: To identify patient and provider perspectives concerning collection of sexual orientation and gender identity (SO&GI) information in emergency departments (EDs). Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted during the period of 2014-2015 with a diverse purposive sample of patients across the spectrum of sexual orientation and gender identities (n = 53) and ED nurses, physician assistants, physicians, and registrars (n = 38) in a major metropolitan area. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by multiple coders using constant comparative methods. Results: Patients were willing to provide SO&GI information if collected safely and appropriately, and staff described willingness to collect SO&GI information to inform understanding of health disparities. Key themes across respondents were as follows: What will be done with the data? How will it be collected? Who will collect it? Is the environment conducive to safe disclosure? Confidentiality and potential sensitivity; standardized collection emphasizing population health; nurse intake and/or nonverbal data collection; and environmental cues and cultural competency promoting comfort for sexual and gender minorities emerged as critical considerations for effective implementation. Conclusion: Staff and patients are amenable to SO&GI data collection in EDs, but data quality and patient and provider comfort may be compromised without attention to specific implementation considerations

Collecting sexual orientation and gender identity information in the emergency department : The divide between patient and provider perspectives

Background: In the USA, The Joint Commission and Institute of Medicine have called for collection of patient sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI) information in healthcare. In a recent study, we reported that ED clinicians believe patients will refuse to provide this information; however, very few patients say they would refuse to provide SO/GI. As part of this study, we interviewed patients and providers regarding the importance of collecting this information. While these interviews were briefly summarised in our prior report, the qualitative data warranted a more thorough analysis and exposition to explore provider and patient views as well as risks and benefits of collecting SO/GI. Methods: A purposive sample of 79 participants was recruited for semi-structured interviews between August 2014 and January 2015. Participants included community members who had a previous ED encounter and ED providers from 3 community and 2 academic centres in a major US metropolitan area. Interviews were conducted one-on-one in person, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using the constant comparative method. Results: Fifty-three patients and 26 ED providers participated. Patients perceived collection of SO/GI to be important in most clinical circumstances because SO/GI is relevant to their identity and allows providers to treat the whole person. However, many providers felt SO/GI was not relevant in most clinical circumstances because similar care is provided to all patients regardless of SO/GI. Patients and providers agreed there are risks associated with collecting SO/GI in the ED. Conclusions: ED clinicians do not perceive routine collection of SO/GI to be medically relevant in most circumstances. However, patients feel routine SO/GI collection allows for recognition of individual identity and improved therapeutic relationships in the ED. These discordant perspectives may be hindering patient-centred care, especially for sexual and gender minority patients

Temporal trends in gender-affirming surgery among transgender patients in the United States

Importance: Little is known about the incidence of gender-affirming surgical procedures for transgender patients in the United States.Objectives: To investigate the incidence and trends over time of gender-affirming surgical procedures and to analyze characteristics and payer status of transgender patients seeking these operations.Design, setting, and participants: In this descriptive observational study from 2000 to 2014, data were analyzed from the National Inpatient Sample, a representative pool of inpatient visits across the United States. The initial analyses were done from June to August 2015. Patients of interest were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, diagnosis codes for transsexualism or gender identity disorder. Subanalysis focused on patients with procedure codes for surgery related to gender affirmation.Main outcomes and measures: Demographics, health insurance plan, and type of surgery for patients who sought gender-affirming surgery were compared between 2000-2005 and 2006-2011, as well as annually from 2012 to 2014.Results: This study included 37 827 encounters (median [interquartile range] patient age, 38 [26-49] years) identified by a diagnosis code of transsexualism or gender identity disorder. Of all encounters, 4118 (10.9%) involved gender-affirming surgery. The incidence of genital surgery increased over time: in 2000-2005, 72.0% of patients who underwent gender-affirming procedures had genital surgery; in 2006-2011, 83.9% of patients who underwent gender-affirming procedures had genital surgery. Most patients (2319 of 4118 [56.3%]) undergoing these procedures were not covered by any health insurance plan. The number of patients seeking these procedures who were covered by Medicare or Medicaid increased by 3-fold in 2014 (to 70) compared with 2012-2013 (from 25). No patients who underwent inpatient gender-affirming surgery died in the hospital.Conclusions and relevance: Most transgender patients in this national sample undergoing inpatient gender-affirming surgery were classified as self-pay; however, an increasing number of transgender patients are being covered by private insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid. As coverage for these procedures increases, likely so will demand for qualified surgeons to perform them

Implementing sexual orientation and gender identity data collection in emergency departments: Patient and staff perspectives

Purpose: To identify patient and provider perspectives concerning collection of sexual orientation and gender identity (SO&GI) information in emergency departments (EDs). Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted during the period of 2014-2015 with a diverse purposive sample of patients across the spectrum of sexual orientation and gender identities (n = 53) and ED nurses, physician assistants, physicians, and registrars (n = 38) in a major metropolitan area. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by multiple coders using constant comparative methods. Results: Patients were willing to provide SO&GI information if collected safely and appropriately, and staff described willingness to collect SO&GI information to inform understanding of health disparities. Key themes across respondents were as follows: What will be done with the data? How will it be collected? Who will collect it? Is the environment conducive to safe disclosure? Confidentiality and potential sensitivity; standardized collection emphasizing population health; nurse intake and/or nonverbal data collection; and environmental cues and cultural competency promoting comfort for sexual and gender minorities emerged as critical considerations for effective implementation. Conclusion: Staff and patients are amenable to SO&GI data collection in EDs, but data quality and patient and provider comfort may be compromised without attention to specific implementation considerations