Journal of Pediatric Surgery ( IF 2.4 ) Pub Date : 2021-09-20 , DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2021.09.020 William G Wong 1 , Pierce Curran 2 , Paige Koetter 2 , Travis Hoover 2 , Rosemary Claire Roden 3 , Kathryn Martin 1
Purpose
Creating inclusive LGBTQ+ environments is important in the provision of inclusive care. This cross sectional study assessed whether patient intake forms in pediatric surgery departments were LGBTQ+ inclusive (L-I).
Methods
North American pediatric surgery departments affiliated with pediatric surgery fellowships or general surgery residencies were contacted to retrieve patient intake forms. Forms were assessed for LGBTQ+ inclusivity using a novel L-I scoring system consisting of 6 criteria: preferred name, pronouns, preferred language, gender identity, sex assigned at birth, and l-I guardianship. Institutions without intake forms were invited to comment on their use of l-I intake questions.
Results
59/125 programs responded to our query, 10 of which provided intake forms. Median l-I score was 2/6 points (range 1–4). l-I guardianship was the most common question asked. No intake form asked for pronouns. Of the 49 institutions without forms, 30.5% reported asking l-I questions during initial visits. Narratives from these institutions varied widely. Some institutions supported routine l-I questions while others stated l-I questions were unnecessary, irrelevant, and/or offensive.
Conclusions
Few North American pediatric surgery departments consistently ask l-I questions during the intake process. Comments questioning the appropriateness and necessity of l-I questions highlight the need for LGBTQ+ education.
Level of evidence
Level III.
Type of study
Cross sectional study.
中文翻译:
儿科手术诊所是否包括 LGBTQ+?
目的
创建包容性 LGBTQ+ 环境对于提供包容性护理非常重要。这项横断面研究评估了儿科手术部门的患者摄入形式是否包含 LGBTQ+ (LI)。
方法
联系了附属于小儿外科研究金或普通外科住院医师的北美小儿外科部门,以检索患者入院表格。使用由 6 个标准组成的新型L- I 评分系统评估表格的 LGBTQ+ 包容性:首选名称、代词、首选语言、性别认同、出生时分配的性别和L-I监护权。没有录取表格的机构被邀请评论他们对l-I录取问题的使用。
结果
59/125 个项目回应了我们的询问,其中 10 个提供了入学表格。中位数l -I 得分为 2/6 分(范围 1-4)。l -I 监护权是最常见的问题。没有要求代词的摄入形式。在没有表格的 49 家机构中,30.5% 的机构报告称在初次访问时询问了l-I问题。这些机构的叙述千差万别。一些机构支持常规l-I问题,而另一些机构则表示l-I问题是不必要的、不相关的和/或冒犯性的。
结论
很少有北美儿科外科部门在录取过程中始终如一地提出l-I问题。质疑l-I问题的适当性和必要性的评论强调了 LGBTQ+ 教育的必要性。
证据级别
三级。
研究类型
横断面研究。