This study suggests that among older adults, the probability of completing ADs is related to personal requests by health care providers, educational level, and exposure to advance care planning media campaigns.

Background: Although the American Heart Association promotes telehealth models to improve care access, there is limited literature on its use in underserved populations. This study is the first to compare utilization and quality of life (QoL) for underserved black and Hispanic heart failure (HF) patients assigned to telehealth self-monitoring (TSM) or comprehensive outpatient management (COM) over 90 days.Methods: This randomized controlled trial enrolled 104 patients. Outcomes included emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, QoL, depression, and anxiety. Binary outcomes for utilization were analyzed using chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Poisson or negative binomial regression, repeated-measures analysis of variance, or generalized estimating equations were also used as appropriate.Results: Of 104 patients, 31% were Hispanic, 69% black, 41% women, and 72% reported incomes of <$10,000/year. Groups did not differ regarding binary ED visits (relative risk [RR] = 1.37, confidence interval [CI] = 0.83–2.27), hospitalization (RR = 0.92, CI = 0.57–1.48), or length of stay in days (TSM = 0.54 vs. COM = 0.91). Number of all-cause hospitalizations was significantly lower for COM (TSM = 0.78 vs. COM = 0.55; p = 0.03). COM patients reported greater anxiety reduction from baseline to 90 days (TSM = 50–28%; COM = 57–13%; p = 0.05).Conclusions: These findings suggest that TSM is not effective in reducing utilization or improving QoL for underserved patients with HF. Future studies are needed to determine whether TSM can be effective for populations facing health care access issues.

Background and AimsUnited States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) scores are the single, most objective criteria for admission into residency programs in the country. Underrepresented minorities in medicine (URiM) are found to have lower USMLE scores compared to their White counterparts. The objective of this study is to examine how USMLE step 1 cutoff scores may exclude self‐reported URiM from the residency interview process across various specialties.MethodsThis was a retrospective cross‐sectional study of 10 541 applicants to different residency programs at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell Health between May 2014 and May 2015. We identified Blacks and Hispanics as URiM. The primary outcome is the percentage of applicants with USMLE step 1 score above different ranges of cutoff score, from 205 to 235 in five‐point increments, by race/ethnicity and by URiM status. Secondary outcome is percentages of URiM vs non‐URiM above and below mean USMLE step 1 scores by different specialties (internal medicine, obstetrics/gynecology, pediatrics, and psychiatry).ResultsThe study sample included 2707 White, 722 Black, 805 Hispanic, 5006 Asian, and 562 Other Race/Ethnicity applicants. Overall, 50.2% were male, 21.3% URiM, 7.4% had limited English proficiency, 67.6% attended international medical schools, and 2.4% are Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society (AOA) members. The mean (±SD) USMLE step 1 score was significantly greater among non‐URiM applicants as compared to URiM applicants (223.7 ± 19.4 vs 216.1 ± 18.4, P < .01, two‐sample t‐test). Non‐URiM applicants were younger, and the percentage of male and AOA applicants was greater among non‐URiM applicants as compared to URiM applicants (50.5% vs 47.7%, P = .02, Chi‐Square test; 2.9% vs 1.2%, P < .01, Chi‐Square test, respectively).ConclusionUsing a USMLE step 1 cutoff score as an initial filter for applicant recruitment and selection could jeopardize the benefits of a diverse residency program. Practical implications are discussed.

No abstract