Objective:In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals have developed visitor restriction policies in order to mitigate spread of infection. We reviewed hospital visitor restriction policies for consistency and to develop recommendations to highlight fair and transparent restrictions, exceptions, and appeals in policy development and implementation. Design: Collection and analysis of public-facing visitor restriction policies during the first 3 months of the pandemic. Setting: General acute care hospitals representing 23 states across all 4 major regions of the United States. Participants: A cohort of the 70 largest hospitals by total bed capacity. Measurements: Characteristics of visitor restriction policies including general visitor restriction statement, changes/ updates to policies over time, exceptions to policies, and restrictions specific to COVID-19-positive patients. Results: Sixty-five of the 70 hospitals reviewed had public-facing visitor restriction policies. Forty-nine of these 65 policies had general "no-visitor" statements, whereas 16 allowed at least 1 visitor to accompany all patients. Sixty-three of 65 hospitals included exceptions to their visitor restriction policies. Setting-specific exceptions included pediatrics, obstetrics/gynecology, emergency department, behavioral health, inpatient rehabilitation, surgery, and outpatient clinics. Exceptions that applied across settings included patients at end of life and patients with disabilities. Conclusion:Visitor restriction policies varied significantly among hospitals in this review. These variances create challenges in that their fair application may be problematic and ethical issues related to allocation may arise. Five recommendations are offered for hospitals revising or creating such policies, including that offering transparent, accessible, public-facing policies can minimize ethical dilemmas. In addition, hospitals would benefit from communicating with each other in the development of visitor policies to ensure uniformity and support patients and family members as they navigate hospital visitation.
Introduction: The ethical skills fundamental to medical practice encompass a large portion of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) professionalism milestones. Yet many ethical practices are difficult to reduce to milestone frameworks given the variety of traditions of moral reasoning that clinician-trainees and their colleagues might properly employ. Methods: We developed an observed standardized clinical examination (OSCE) simulation with standardized patients to assess the ethical skills captured in professionalism milestones in pediatrics. The OSCE included four vignettes based on actual cases that presented problems without a correct answer. Residents discussed ethically challenging issues with standardized patients and were evaluated on specific ethical tenets contained in the professionalism milestones. Our assessment guide for preceptors offered content for debriefing and assessment. We piloted this OSCE with seven preceptors and 17 pediatric residents in two different medical settings. Results: Residents all agreed that the four cases were realistic. All but two residents agreed that OSCEs like this one are an appropriate or objective way of assessing the ACGME professionalism milestones. All preceptors reported that they strongly agreed the assessment improved their ability to assess the professionalism milestones. Discussion: This OSCE offers a structured method to assess professionalism milestones and a forum to discuss ethical problem solving. It can also be used solely as a training exercise in ethical decision making and having difficult conversations.
Author Contributions: Ms Cerdeña had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Background Medical students preparing for the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) Exam frequently use the UWorld Step 2 CK Question Bank (QBank). Over 90% of medical students use UWorld QBanks to prepare for at least one USMLE. Although several questions in the QBank mention race, ethnicity, or immigration status, their contributions to the QBank remain underexamined. Objective We conducted a systematic, mixed-methods content analysis to assess whether and how disease conditions might be racialized throughout this popular medical education resource. Design We screened 3537 questions in the QBank between May 28 and August 11, 2020, for mentions of race, ethnicity, or immigration status. We performed multinomial logistic regression to assess the likelihood of each racial/ethnic category occurring in either the question stem, answer explanation, or both. We used an inductive technique for codebook development and determined code frequencies. Main Measures We reviewed the frequency and distribution of race or ethnicity in question stems, answer choices, and answer explanations; assessed associations between disease conditions and racial and ethnic categories; and identified whether and how these associations correspond to race-, ethnicity-, or migration-based care. Results References to Black race occurred most frequently, followed by Asian, White, and Latinx groups. Mentions of race/ethnicity varied significantly by location in the question: Asian race had 6.40 times greater odds of occurring in the answer explanation only (95% CI 1.19–34.49; p < 0.031) and White race had 9.88 times greater odds of occurring only in the question stem (95% CI 2.56–38.08; p < 0.001). Qualitative analyses suggest frequent associations between disease conditions and racial, ethnic, and immigration categories, which often carry implicit or explicit biological and genetic explanations. Conclusions Our analysis reveals patterns of race-based disease associations that have potential for systematic harm, including promoting incorrect race-based associations and upholding cultural conventions of White bodies as normative.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.