A Graduate Medical Orientation Intervention Focused on Local Health Inequities

Background

Residents must understand the social drivers of health in the communities they serve to deliver quality care. While resident orientation provides an opportunity to introduce residents to social and structural drivers of health, inequity, and care delivery relevant to the patient population in their new communities, many graduate medical education orientation curricula do not include this content.

Objective

To report the development and implementation of a novel, patient-centered health equity orientation curriculum, including initial feasibility and acceptability data as well as preliminary self-reported outcomes.

Methods

The curriculum was developed by academic faculty in collaboration with institutional and local health equity champions. Content centered on the history of inequities and racism within the local communities and included didactic presentations, asynchronous video, and virtual site visits to community resource groups. The curriculum was administered to all 2021 incoming Vanderbilt University Medical Center medical and surgical residents (N=270) over 2 half-days, both in-person and via Zoom. Data were collected anonymously via pre- and post-surveys.

Results

A total of 216 residents (80% response rate) provided pre-survey response data, but only 138 residents (51.1%) provided post-survey data, including self-reported demographics (eg, underrepresented in medicine status) and level of agreement with 10 competency-based statements coded as pertaining to knowledge, skills, behaviors, or attitudes (KSBAs). Primary outcomes included improvement in residents' KSBAs from pre- to post-survey. The greatest increases in percentages occurred with content that was specific to local history and population.

Conclusions

In a class of incoming residents, this study demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and pre-post curriculum improvement in self-reported KSBAs when addressing health equity issues.

Social Determinants of Health and Their Impact on the Black Race Coefficient in Serum Creatinine-Based Estimation of GFR: Secondary Analysis of MDRD and CRIC Studies

BACKGROUND

The cause for differences in serum creatinine between Black and non-Black individuals incorporated into prior GFR-estimating equations is not understood. We explored whether social determinants of health can account for this difference.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of baseline data of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease and Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort studies ( N =1628 and 1423, respectively). Data in both study cohorts were stratified by race (Black versus non-Black). We first evaluated the extent to which the coefficient of Black race in estimating GFR from creatinine is explained by correlations of race with social determinants of health and non-GFR determinants of creatinine. Second, we evaluated whether the difference between race groups in adjusted mean creatinine can be explained by social determinants of health and non-GFR determinants of creatinine.

RESULTS

In models regressing measured GFR on creatinine, age, sex, and race, the coefficient for Black race was 21% (95% confidence interval, 0.176 to 0.245) in Modification of Diet in Renal Disease and 13% (95% confidence interval, 0.097 to 0.155) in the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort and was not attenuated by the addition of social determinants of health, alone or in combination. In both studies, the coefficient for Black race was larger at lower versus higher income levels. In models, regressing creatinine on measured GFR, age, and sex, mean creatinine was higher in Black versus non-Black participants in both studies, with no effect of social determinants of health.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjustment for selected social determinants of health did not influence the relationship between Black race and creatinine-based estimated GFR.

Systematic review of international studies evaluating MDRD and CKD-EPI estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) equations in Black adults

Use of race adjustment in estimating glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) has been challenged given concerns that it may negatively impact the clinical care of Black patients, as it results in Black patients being systematically assigned higher eGFR values than non-Black patients. We conducted a systematic review to assess how well eGFR, with and without race adjustment, estimates measured GFR (mGFR) in Black adults globally. A search across multiple databases for articles published from 1999 to May 2021 that compared eGFR to mGFR and reported outcomes by Black race was performed. We included studies that assessed eGFR using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPICr) creatinine equations. Risk of study bias and applicability were assessed with the QUality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Of 13,167 citations identified, 12 met the data synthesis criteria (unique patient cohorts in which eGFR was compared to mGFR with and without race adjustment). The studies included patients with and without kidney disease from Africa (n = 6), the United States (n = 3), Europe (n = 2), and Brazil (n = 1). Of 11 CKD-EPI equation studies, all assessed bias, 8 assessed accuracy, 6 assessed precision, and 5 assessed correlation/concordance. Of 7 MDRD equation studies, all assessed bias, 6 assessed accuracy, 5 assessed precision, and 3 assessed correlation/concordance. The majority of studies found that removal of race adjustment improved bias, accuracy, and precision of eGFR equations for Black adults. Risk of study bias was often unclear, but applicability concerns were low. Our systematic review supports the need for future studies to be conducted in diverse populations to assess the possibility of alternative approaches for estimating GFR. This study additionally provides systematic-level evidence for the American Society of Nephrology-National Kidney Foundation Task Force efforts to pursue other options for GFR estimation.

Health Care Professionals' Perspectives on Universal Screening of Social Determinants of Health: A Mixed-Methods Study

Social determinants of health (SDH) contribute to nearly 50% of health outcomes; however, SDH data collection is inconsistent in clinical practice. This study used mixed methods to evaluate health care professionals' perceptions of universal SDH screening at an academic medical center by surveying physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, social workers, case managers, pharmacists, and administrators. An electronic survey assessed SDH screening practices, prioritization of SDH domains, disciplines to perform screening, and attitudes and barriers to universal screening. Likert-scale responses were dichotomized and compared disciplines with proportions tests. Qualitative interviews identified themes and elaborated survey findings. Participant discipline was the primary predictor variable. Of 193 survey participants (62.5% response rate), most were physicians (31%) or social workers (22%). Participants overwhelmingly reported using SDH information in patient care (93%), and social workers as the most appropriate role for screening (95%). Most respondents (75%) believed health literacy is important, but 40% reported routine assessment. Housing status (73% vs. 53%) and financial strain (62% vs. 48%) followed similar patterns. SDH screening barriers included lacking resources to address identified needs (51%), time to ask (45%), support staff to ask (33%), and training in responding to identified needs (28%). Social workers cited barriers less often than non-social workers (P < 0.001). Qualitative interviews (n = 16) supported survey findings and described barriers including lack of time, resources, standardized approaches, and professional burnout. Health care professionals support universal SDH screening while highlighting the need to address implementation barriers. Strategies should leverage social work expertise and optimize SDH data accessibility for all providers.

Should We Implement Geographic or Patient-Reported Social Determinants of Health Measures In Cardiovascular Patients

Objectives

To compare patient-reported social determinants of health (SDOH) to the Brokamp Area Deprivation Index (ADI), and evaluate the association of patient-reported SDOH and ADI with mortality in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Design

Prospective cohort.

Setting

Academic medical center.

Participants

Adults with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or acute exacerbation of heart failure (HF) hospitalized between 2011 and 2015.

Methods

Patient-reported SDOH included: income range, education, health insurance, and household size. ADI was calculated using census tract level variables of poverty, median income, high school completion, lack of health insurance, assisted income, and vacant housing.

Primary Outcome

All-cause mortality, up to 5 years follow-up.

Results

The sample was 60% male, 84% White, and 93% insured; mean patient-reported household income was $48,000 (SD $34,000). ADI components were significantly associated with corresponding patient-reported variables. In age, sex, and race adjusted Cox regression models, ADI was associated with mortality for ACS (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.06, 1.42), but not HF (HR 1.09, 95% CI .99, 1.21). Mortality models for ACS improved with consideration of social determinants data (C-statistics: base demographic model=.612; ADI added=.644; patient-reported SDOH added=.675; both ADI and patient-reported SDOH added=.689). HF mortality models improved only slightly (C-statistics: .600, .602, .617, .620, respectively).

Conclusions

The Brokamp ADI is associated with mortality in hospitalized patients with CVD. In the absence of available patient-reported data, hospitals could implement the Brokamp ADI as an approximation for patient-reported data to enhance risk stratification of patients with CVD.