Publications

Academic hospitalists must balance trainee education with operational demands to round efficiently and optimize hospital throughput. Peer observation has been shown to support educator development, however, few hospitalists have formal training to optimize both skill sets. We sought to extend and adapt peer observation programs to equally focus on education and operations-based outcomes. During the 2-year study period, 76 of 98 (78%) eligible faculty participated in a structured, real-time peer observation program. Immediately after observing a peer, 42% of respondents planned to adopt an operations-related rounding behavior. Following program completion, 77% of respondents endorsed the implementation of a new rounding behavior learned from a peer, with a third of these behaviors related to clinical operations. Ninety-five percent of respondents endorsed at least a moderate degree of program satisfaction. High levels of engagement and sustained behavior change following program participation suggest clinical operations are an important addition to peer observation programs and faculty development initiatives.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Rapid developments in Alzheimer disease (AD) biomarker research suggest that predictive testing may become widely available. To ensure equal access to AD predictive testing, it is important to understand factors that affect testing interest. Discrimination may influence attitudes toward AD testing, particularly among racially and ethnically minoritized populations, because of structural racism in health care systems. This study examined whether everyday or lifetime discrimination experiences shape interest in AD predictive testing.

METHODS

In the 2010 and 2012 biennial Health and Retirement Study waves, respondents were randomly selected to complete questions on interest in receiving free testing that could determine whether they would develop AD in the future. The exposures were everyday discrimination (6 items) and lifetime discrimination (7 items); both were transformed into a binary variable. Logistic regression models predicting interest in AD testing were controlled for deciles of propensity scores for each discrimination measure. Odds ratios were re-expressed as risk differences (RDs).

RESULTS

Our analytic sample included 1,499 respondents. The mean age was 67 (SD = 10.2) years, 57.4% were women, 65.7% were White, and 80% endorsed interest in AD predictive testing. Most of the participants (54.7%) experienced everyday discrimination in at least one domain; 24.1% experienced major lifetime discrimination in at least one domain. Those interested in predictive testing were younger (66 vs 70 years) and more likely to be Black (20% vs 15%) or Latinx (14% vs 8%) than participants uninterested in testing. The probability of wanting an AD test was not associated with discrimination for Black (RD everyday discrimination = -0.026; 95% CI [-0.081 to 0.029]; RD lifetime discrimination = -0.012; 95% CI [-0.085 to 0.063]) or Latinx (RD everyday discrimination = -0.023, 95% CI [-0.082 to 0.039]; RD lifetime discrimination = -0.011; 95% CI [-0.087 to 0.064]) participants.

DISCUSSION

Despite historical and contemporary experiences of discrimination, Black and Latinx individuals express interest in AD testing. However, Black and Latinx individuals remain underrepresented in AD research, including research on AD testing. Interest in personalized information about dementia risk may be a pathway to enhance their inclusion in research and clinical trials.