McKinney, Warren T.

Key Points Pediatric preemptive kidney transplantation rates in the United States vary by socioeconomic status (SES). The HOUsing-based index of SES, an individual-level SES measure derived from residential addresses, effectively predicts pediatric preemptive kidney transplant rates. Background Preemptive kidney transplantation in children is associated with better patient and graft survival compared with transplants after dialysis. However, preemptive kidney transplantation rates in children remain low. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of socioeconomic status (SES) on preemptive transplantation in children. Methods Our study included 173 Minnesota-resident pediatric kidney transplant recipients (younger than 18 years) transplanted at the University of Minnesota from 2010 to 2020. Using the HOUsing-based index of SES (HOUSES) index, a validated, individual SES measure based on housing units categorized into quartiles (Q1: lower SES; Q2–Q4: higher SES), we applied mixed-effects multivariable logistic models to examine the effects of HOUSES on preemptive kidney transplants and pretransplant dialysis duration. Results Of 173 pediatric kidney transplant recipients, 46 (26.6%) received a preemptive transplant, and of 109 recipients with dialysis duration data, 39 (35.8%) received dialysis for >1 year. After adjusting for age at kidney failure, sex, donor type, insurance type, and underlying cause of kidney failure, we observed significantly lower odds of preemptive transplantation among Q1 recipients compared with Q2–4 recipients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.11 to 0.90; P = 0.03). Conclusions Using the HOUSES index, we found significant socioeconomic disparities in preemptive kidney transplantation rates among children.

AbstractDespite the known benefits of supportive work environments for promoting patient quality and safety and healthcare worker retention, there is no clear mandate for improving work environments within Learning Health Systems (LHS) nor an LHS wellness competency. Striking rises in burnout levels among healthcare workers provide urgency for this topic.MethodsWe brought three experts on moral injury, burnout prevention, and ethics to a recurring, interactive LHS training program “Design Shop” session, harnessing scholars’ ideas prior to the meeting. Generally following SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines, we evaluated the prework and discussion via informal content analysis to develop a set of pathways for developing moral injury and burnout prevention programs. Along these lines, we developed a new competency for moral injury and burnout prevention within LHS training programs.ResultsIn preparation for the session, scholars differentiated moral injury from burnout, highlighted the profound impact of COVID‐19 on moral injury, and proposed testable interventions to reduce injury. Scholar and expert input was then merged into developing the new competency in moral injury and burnout prevention. In particular, the competency focuses on preparing scholars to (1) demonstrate knowledge of moral injury and burnout, (2) measure burnout, moral injury, and their remediable predictors, (3) use methods for improving burnout, (4) structure training programs with supportive work environments, and (5) embed burnout and moral injury prevention into LHS structures.ConclusionsBurnout and moral injury prevention have been largely omitted in LHS training. A competency related to burnout and moral injury reduction can potentially bring sustainable work lives for scholars and their colleagues, better incorporation of their science into clinical practice, and better outcomes for patients.