Spector, Nancy Dollase

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE Patient- and family-centered rounds (PFCR) have become a pediatric standard of care. However, rounds experiences of families using languages other than English (LOE)—particularly languages other than English or Spanish (LOES; eg, Arabic)—receive less focus. We aimed to identify differences in PFCR communication and engagement by language. METHODS We analyzed postintervention data from a 21-center structured PFCR study, assessing communication practices, quality, and family and nurse engagement during PFCR. Logistic regression adjusted by site compared PFCR between families using (1) LOE vs English, (2) Spanish vs English, and (3) LOES vs English. RESULTS Among 3051 PFCR encounters, 348 (11.4%) involved LOE (Spanish = 260; LOES = 85). Interpretation was not used in 7.2%, 5.8%, and 9.4% of encounters using LOE, Spanish, and LOES, respectively. PFCR in the following groups had lower adjusted odds (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI]) for the following domains: (1) LOE vs English: including providing verbal patient summaries (0.66 [0.46–0.95]), explaining diagnoses and differentials (0.62 [0.44–0.88]), family engagement (0.34 [0.20–0.57]), nursing inclusion (0.75 [0.60–0.93]), and nursing engagement (0.69 [0.52–0.90]). (2) Spanish vs English: diagnoses/differentials being explained (0.56 [0.37–0.85]), family engagement (0.35 [0.18–0.67]), nursing inclusion (0.77 [0.59–1.00]), and nursing engagement (0.68 [0.52–0.89]). (3) LOES vs English: families sharing concerns (0.66 [0.47–0.93]), family engagement (0.30 [0.16–0.54]), and nursing inclusion (0.74 [0.55–0.99]). CONCLUSION Even after implementing a PFCR intervention, families using LOE—especially LOES—experienced significant disparities in communication and engagement. Future approaches to improving PFCR should emphasize language access and promote nurse and family engagement for families using LOE, particularly LOES.

Background and Objectives: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have significantly influenced medical practice worldwide. Nevertheless, the authorship of CPGs produced by several medical societies has not been representative of the field and population they address, as women and individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups have been underrepresented as authors. We hypothesized that women and individuals from minoritized racial and ethnic groups would also be underrepresented as authors of CPGs produced by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Methods: In this cross-sectional study, the gender, race, and ethnic composition of authors and subcommittee participants of AAP-produced CPGs published from January 2010 through May 2023 were analyzed and compared to the 2010 and 2021 U.S. population and 2010 and 2022 U.S. medical school pediatric faculty. Results: Women (39.7%, 127/320 of all positions, and 42.5%, 85/200 of named author positions) and women physicians (35.2%, 101/287 of all positions, and 36.4%, 64/176 of named author positions) were significantly underrepresented—while men and men physicians were significantly overrepresented—from their respective composition in the U.S. Census and pediatric faculty. Women and women physicians from all racial and ethnic groups and men and men physicians from minority racial and ethnic groups were significantly underrepresented—from their respective composition in the U.S. Census and pediatric faculty. No Black man was identified as an author. Conclusions: Medical societies that produce CPGs should be cognizant of these inequities and ensure appropriate authorship diversity.

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.