Marcelin, Jasmine

Abstract Background Specialty societies, including the Infectious Diseases Society of America, strive to address gender and racial inequities in professional advancement. Microaggressions remain a persistent and pervasive barrier to these goals. Nonprofessional speaker introductions are a manifestation of race- and gender-based microaggressions, which have not been previously assessed at IDWeek. We assessed disparities in speaker introductions at IDWeek over a 7-year period that included formal gender equity initiatives introduced in 2016. Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study of video-recorded IDWeek speaker introductions from 2013 to 2019. Trained coders reviewed presentation video archives to assess a primary outcome of nonprofessional introductions: when a speaker's professional title was not used as the first introduction. We used descriptive statistics, Fisher exact tests, Cochrane-Armitage trend tests, and multivariable logistic regression to characterize relationships between speaker introductions and presentation year, speaker demographics, and speaker-moderator demographic concordance. Results Of 1940 videos reviewed, 48.9% of IDWeek speakers received nonprofessional introductions during and before 2016 vs 41.5% of speakers after 2016 (P = .0013). There was an increasing linear trend in the frequency of professional introductions by speaker age group from 47.1% for age <40 years to 65.3% for age >60 years (P < .0001). White moderators more frequently used nonprofessional introductions than moderators from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine (47.7% vs 29.1%, P = .0014). Women-men speaker-moderator pairs had more nonprofessional introductions (54.6%, P < .001). Conclusions In the largest assessment of microaggressions in speaker introductions at a national medical specialty conference, we highlighted some progress over time and ample opportunity to further standardize equitable speaker introductions, especially for women and junior speakers

AbstractBackgroundIn 2016, the IDWeek program committee was charged with ensuring gender equity in speaker sessions. Whether this charge also resulted in more opportunities for historically underrepresented speakers is unknown.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of trends in the demographic composition of IDWeek speakers and program committee members between 2013 and 2021. We used descriptive statistics to summarize data, χ2 tests to compare speaker demographics between 2013–2016 (before 2016) and 2017–2021 (after 2016), and Cochran–Armitage tests for trend. Each speaker slot was considered an independent event.ResultsA total of 5482 speaker slots were filled by 3389 individuals from 2013 to 2021. There was a linear increase in female speakers from 38.6% in 2013 to 58.4% in 2021 (P < .001). The proportion of white speakers decreased overall from 84.9% in 2013 to 63.5% in 2021. Compared with white speakers, more slots were filled by Asian speakers after 2016 versus before 2016 (20.1% vs 14.8%, respectively; P < .001). Program committee members from 2013–2021 were >80% non-Hispanic white; <5% of committee members identified as black, American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, or Hispanic. More program committee slots were filled by women after 2016 than before 2016 (52.7% vs 33.9%; P = .004).ConclusionsIntentional consideration of gender equity by the program committee was associated with equitable gender representation of invited speakers at IDWeek after 2016. Gradually, the proportions of IDWeek speakers from historically excluded racial/ethnic approached their respective proportions in the IDSA membership. White speakers remained overrepresented relative to membership proportions until 2021, and gaps in program committee racial/ethnic demographic representation highlights opportunities for continued inclusion, diversity, access, and equity at IDWeek.

Gender bias and discrimination have profound and far-reaching effects on the health care workforce, delivery of patient care, and advancement of science and are antithetical to the principles of professionalism. In the quest for gender equity, medicine, with its abundance of highly educated and qualified women, should be leading the way. The sheer number of women who comprise the majority of pediatricians in the United States suggests this specialty has a unique opportunity to stand out as progressively equitable. Indeed, there has been much progress to celebrate for women in medicine and pediatrics. However, many challenges remain, and there are areas in which progress is too slow, stalled, or even regressing. The fair treatment of women pediatricians will require enhanced and simultaneous commitment from leaders in 4 key gatekeeper groups: academic medical centers, hospitals, health care organizations, and practices; medical societies; journals; and funding agencies. In this report, we describe the 6-step equity, diversity, and inclusion cycle, which provides a strategic methodology to (1) examine equity, diversity, and inclusion data; (2) share results with stakeholders; (3) investigate causality; (4) implement strategic interventions; (5) track outcomes and adjust strategies; and (6) disseminate results. Next steps include the enforcement of a climate of transparency and accountability, with leaders prioritizing and financially supporting workforce gender equity. This scientific and data-driven approach will accelerate progress and help pave a pathway to better health care and science.

Patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) often are subject to antibiotic and diagnostic test overuse. We sought to improve appropriate use of antimicrobials and diagnostic tests for patients with FN. We used a blended quality approach with Lean Six Sigma tools and iterative improvement of a clinical decision aid to guide providers through empirical antimicrobial selection and diagnostic evaluation of patients with FN during a yearlong period. We evaluated the incidence of nonadherence to best practice before, during, and after rollout of a clinical decision aid in conjunction with an educational initiative. At baseline, 71% of patients with FN had at least one critical deviation from best practice. During the project, the percentage decreased to 27.3%; 4 months after the project was completed, the percentage was 33.3% ( P = .04). A clinical decision aid can improve adherence to best practices for the empirical management of FN.

ABSTRACT Intravenous radiographic contrast medium and amphotericin B are commonly required in the care of patients with fungal infections. Both interventions have proposed nephrotoxicity through similar mechanisms. We systematically examined patients who received coadministration of liposomal amphotericin B (AmBisome; GE Healthcare) and intravenous contrast medium within a 24-h period and compared the results for those patients with the results for patients who underwent non-contrast medium studies. We found 114 cases and 85 controls during our study period. Overall, no increased risk of renal injury was seen with coadministration of these 2 agents. Adjustment for age, baseline kidney function, and other clinical factors through propensity score adjustment did not change this result. Our observations suggest that, when clinically indicated, coadministration of contrast medium and liposomal amphotericin B does not present excess risk compared with that from the administration of liposomal amphotericin B alone.