With recommended screening for hepatitis C among the 1945–1965 birth cohort and advent of novel highly effective therapies, little is known about health disparities in the Hepatitis C care cascade. Our objective was to evaluate hepatitis C screening rates and linkage to care, among patients who test positive, at our large integrated health system. We used electronic medical records to retrospectively identify patients, in the birth cohort, who were seen in 21 Internal Medicine clinics from July 2014 to June 2015. Patients previously screened for hepatitis C and those with established disease were excluded. We studied patients’ sociodemographic and medical conditions along with provider-specific factors associated with likelihood of screening. Patients who tested positive for HCV antibody were reviewed to assess appropriate linkage to care and treatment. Of 40,561 patients who met inclusion criteria, 21.3% (8657) were screened, 1.3% (109) tested positive, and 30% (30/100) completed treatment. Multivariate logistic regression showed that African American race, male gender, electronic health engagement, residency teaching clinic visit, and having more than one clinic visit were associated with higher odds of screening. Patients had a significant decrease in the likelihood of screening with sequential interval increase in their Charlson comorbidity index. When evaluating hepatitis C treatment in patients who screened positive, electronic health engagement was associated with higher odds of treatment whereas Medicaid insurance was associated with significantly lower odds. This study shows that hepatitis C screening rates and linkage to care continue to be suboptimal with a significant impact of multiple sociodemographic and insurance factors. Electronic health engagement emerges as a tool in linking patients to the hepatitis C care cascade.

Socioeconomic and racial disparities were associated with patients with severe AS receiving TAVR at a major referral center. This study emphasizes the importance of improving access to standard of care for these subgroups of cardiac patients.

BACKGROUND: Internal Medicine residency training in ambulatory care has been judged inadequate, yet how trainees value continuity clinic and which aspects of clinic affect attitudes are unknown. OBJECTIVES:To determine the value that Internal Medicine residents place on continuity clinic and how clinic precepting, operations, and patient panels affect its valuation. DESIGN AND MEASUREMENTS:A survey on ambulatory care was developed, including questions on career choice and the value of clinical training experiences. Independent variables were Likert-scale ratings (1= disagree strongly/no value; 3=neutral; 5=agree strongly/high value) on preceptors, patients, operations, and resident characteristics. Odds ratios and stepwise multivariate logistic regression with clustering were used to evaluate associations between clinic valuation and independent variables. SUBJECTS:Internal medicine residents at 3 residency programs.RESULTS: 218 of 260 residents (83.8%) completed the survey. Resident ratings were highest on diversity of illness seen (4.1), medical record systems used (4.1), and contact with preceptors who were receptive to questions (4.8). Resident ratings were lowest on economic diversity of patients (2.7), interruptions from inpatient wards (3.1), and contact with preceptors who taught history and physical exam skills (3.5). High ratings on all precepting issues and nearly all operational issues were associated with valuing clinic. With multivariate analysis, high ratings of preceptors as role models were most strongly associated with valuing clinic (corrected relative risk 3.44). A planned career in general Internal Medicine was not associated with valuing clinic.CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction with preceptors, particularly as role models, and clinic operations correlate with the value residents place on continuity clinic.

Patients receiving a POC showed significant improvement in 3 of 5 clinical outcomes compared with those without the tool, and those with more fully completed forms had significant improvement in 2 of 5 clinical outcomes compared with those with partially completed forms.