Research has shown that poor communication between medical teams lead to errors and adverse patient outcomes. Interprofessional bedside rounds (IBR) in which care team professionals develop daily care plans in collaboration with patients and families, are associated with a reduction in these unsatisfactory outcomes. However, little is known about how IBR and related care outcomes may be influenced by gender differences in patients. In this study, I ask, “Are there gender differences in patient satisfaction with their heart failure team’s rounding model and care plans?” I screened preliminary data from questionnaires completed by patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of advanced heart failure at the time of study enrollment, at 10 days post-discharge, and at 30 days post-discharge as part of an ongoing parent study. I stratified data by an individual’s gender indicated in their medical records and cross-referenced that information with self-reported data from enrollment questionnaires. Participant recruitment is ongoing with more than 60 participants currently recruited, of which 68% are male (n = 42) and 32% are female (n = 20). Preliminary results, based on analysis of 23 quantitative questions on perceptions of rounds, suggest a gender difference in satisfaction: male participants reported feeling that their care team respected the role that they wanted to take in their heart failure management at a 4.6 out of 5.0 whereas female participants rated this at a 3.4 out of 5.0. Additional research is needed to understand associations between adherence to IBR and gender differences in patient satisfaction.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic was declared over, the devastating effects it had on individuals and their families all over the world are everlasting. The pandemic has highlighted the impact of utilitarian ethical practices by healthcare providers on marginalized individuals. Although utilitarianism can imply the best for the greater good, it also allows for more inequality, forcing the worst off to accept inequalities that do not benefit them. John Rawls is best known for his Difference Principle and Theory of Justice. These were presented as an alternative to utilitarianism. He worried that utilitarianism may fail to protect the fundamental rights and liberties of a person in its attempt to maximize social welfare. He argues that a principle allowing some citizens advantages that do not benefit the worst off implies that the latter are not equally worthy members of society. This research conducts a systematic review informed by a case study as well as personal interviews through a health equity lens to better understand utilitarianism, Rawls’s principles and decision making. Research could inform how utilitarianism has created a new reality during the COVID-19 pandemic where sickest patients have become the lowest priority, while the healthiest become top priority. It could also inform several more mechanisms for healthcare providers decision making used through a utilitarian lens during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further research on utilitarianism and Rawls’s principles is needed to provide health equity for marginalized individuals with known or unknown underlying health conditions.

More than 2 in every 3 children report at least one trauma event by age 16 (SAMHSA, 2023). Trauma events encompass a myriad of obstacles including poverty, death, jail, exposure to substance misuse, and frequent moves. Prolonged trauma can cause toxic stress and impair learning, memory, and self-regulation (NSCDC, 2020). STRYV365 aims to equip youth with a resilient mindset by improving self-management of attitudes, emotions, and behaviors—such that youth can better cope with stress and enjoy positive life experiences. This is accomplished through trauma-informed programs such as Peak Team and Brain Agents. Peak team coaches guide student decision making, social awareness, and emotional management skills during school. Brain Agents is a complementary video game to improve critical thinking and teach breathing exercises. Our research goal is to longitudinally assess the effects of STRYV365 programs on outcomes of youth feelings, behavior, and schoolwork. All 400 consented participants, grades 5-9 at four Milwaukee schools complete 6 surveys over 2 years, and more than 100 will participate in focus groups and interviews. Themes include sources of pride, emotions when stressed, goals, life challenges, and relations with neighbors. We also will analyze their standardized exams, attendance, and suspensions over 3 years. We expect STRYV365 programs will increase emotional regulation, cause less fighting, and less suspensions. We expect the combined programs will have the greatest effect, followed by Peak Team alone, with Brain Agents alone being more effective than no intervention.