Eli Carrillo, MD

All Publications

• Trends of Academic Faculty Identifying as Hispanic at US Medical Schools, 1990-2021. Journal of graduate medical education Saxena, M. R., Ling, A. Y., Carrillo, E., Alvarez, A., Yiadom, M. Y., Bennett, C. L., Gallegos, M. 2023; 15 (2): 175-179

  Abstract

  Background: According to recent census data, Hispanic and Latino populations comprise the largest minority group in the United States. Despite ongoing efforts for improved diversity, equity, and inclusion, Hispanics remain underrepresented in medicine (UIM). In addition to well-established benefits to patient care and health systems, physician diversity and increased representation in academic faculty positively impact the recruitment of trainees from UIM backgrounds. Disproportionate representation (as compared to increases of certain underrepresented groups in the US population) has direct implications for recruitment of UIM trainees to residency programs.Objective: To examine the number of full-time US medical school faculty physicians who self-identify as Hispanic in light of the increasing Hispanic population in the United States.Methods: We analyzed data from the Association of American Medical Colleges from 1990 to 2021, looking at those academic faculty who were classified as Hispanic, Latino, of Spanish Origin, or of Multiple Race-Hispanic. We used descriptive statistics and visualizations to illustrate the level of representation of Hispanic faculty by sex, rank, and clinical specialty over time.Results: Overall, the proportion of faculty studied who identified as Hispanic increased from 3.1% (1990) to 6.01% (2021). Moreover, while the proportion of female Hispanic academic faculty increased, there remains a lag between females versus males.Conclusions: Our analysis shows that the number of full-time US medical school faculty who self-identify as Hispanic has not increased, though the population of Hispanics in the United States has increased.

  View details for DOI 10.4300/JGME-D-22-00384.1

  View details for PubMedID 37139207

• SARS-CoV-2 IgG Seropositivity and Acute Asymptomatic Infection Rate Among Firefighter First Responders in an Early Outbreak County in California. Prehospital emergency care : official journal of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the National Association of State EMS Directors Newberry, J. A., Gautreau, M., Staats, K., Carrillo, E., Mulkerin, W., Yang, S., Kohn, M. A., Matheson, L., Boyd, S. D., Pinsky, B. A., Blomkalns, A. L., Strehlow, M. C., D'Souza, P. A. 2021: 1–10

  Abstract

  Objective: Firefighter first responders and other emergency medical services (EMS) personnel have been among the highest risk healthcare workers for illness during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We sought to determine the rate of seropositivity for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies and of acute asymptomatic infection among firefighter first responders in a single county with early exposure in the pandemic.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of clinically active firefighters cross-trained as paramedics or EMTs in the fire departments of Santa Clara County, California. Firefighters without current symptoms were tested between June and August 2020. Our primary outcomes were rates of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody seropositivity and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR swab positivity for acute infection. We report cumulative incidence, participant characteristics with frequencies and proportions, and proportion positive and associated relative risk (with 95% confidence intervals).Results: We enrolled 983 out of 1339 eligible participants (response rate: 73.4%). Twenty-five participants (2.54%, 95% CI 1.65-3.73) tested positive for IgG antibodies and 9 (0.92%, 95% CI 0.42-1.73) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Our cumulative incidence, inclusive of self-reported prior positive PCR tests, was 34 (3.46%, 95% CI 2.41-4.80).Conclusion: In a county with one of the earliest outbreaks in the United States, the seroprevalence among firefighter first responders was lower than that reported by other studies of frontline health care workers, while the cumulative incidence remained higher than that seen in the surrounding community.

  View details for DOI 10.1080/10903127.2021.1912227

  View details for PubMedID 33819128

• Measuring Agreement Among Prehospital Providers and Physicians in Patient Capacity Determination. Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine O'Connor, L., Porter, L., Dugas, J., Robinson, C., Carrillo, E., Knowles, K., Nelson, K. P., Gigiliotti, R., Tennyson, J., Weisberg, S., Rebesco, M. 2020

  Abstract

  OBJECTIVE: If a patient wishes to refuse treatment in the prehospital setting, prehospital providers and consulting emergency physicians must establish that the patient possesses the capacity to do so. The objective of this study is to assess agreement among prehospital providers and emergency physicians in performing patient capacity assessments.METHODS: This study involved 139 prehospital providers and 28 emergency medicine physicians. Study participants listened to 30 medical control calls pertaining to patient capacity and were asked to interpret whether the patients in the scenarios had the capacity to refuse treatment. Participants also reported their comfort level using modified Likert scales. Inter-rater reliability was calculated utilizing Fleiss' and Model B kappa statistics. Fisher's exact tests were used to calculate p-values comparing the proportion in each cohort that responded "no capacity." Primary outcomes included inter-rater reliability in the physician and prehospital provider cohorts.RESULTS: The inter-rater agreement between the physicians was low (Fleiss' kappa = 0.31, S.E. = 0.06; model-based kappa = 0.18, S.E. = 0.04). Agreement was similarly low for the 135 prehospital providers (Fleiss' kappa = 0.30, S.E. = 0.06; model-based kappa = 0.28, S.E. = 0.04). The difference between the proportion of physicians and prehospital providers who responded "no capacity" was statistically significant in 5/30 scenarios. Median prehospital provider and physician confidence, on a 1 to 4 scale, was 2.00 (q1-q3 = 1.00-3.00 for prehospital providers and q1-q3= 1.0-2.0 for physicians).CONCLUSION: There was poor inter-rater reliability in capacity determination between and among the prehospital provider and physician cohorts. This suggests that there is need for additional study and standardization of this task.

  View details for DOI 10.1111/acem.13941

  View details for PubMedID 32065493

• Prehospital Administration of Epinephrine in Pediatric Anaphylaxis. Prehospital emergency care : official journal of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the National Association of State EMS Directors Carrillo, E., Hern, H. G., Barger, J. 2016; 20 (2): 239-44

  Abstract

  Anaphylaxis in the pediatric population is both serious and potentially lethal. The incidence of allergic and anaphylactic reactions has been increasing and the need for life saving intervention with epinephrine must remain an important part of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) provider training. Our aim was to characterize dosing and timing of epinephrine, diphenhydramine, and albuterol in the pediatric patient with anaphylaxis. In this retrospective chart review, we studied prehospital medication administration in pediatric patients ages 1 month up to 14 years old classified as having a severe allergic reaction or anaphylaxis. We compared rates of epinephrine, diphenhydramine, and albuterol given to patients with allergic conditions including anaphylaxis. In addition, we calculated the rate of epinephrine administration in cases of anaphylaxis and determined what percentage of time the epinephrine was given by EMS or prior to their arrival. Of the pediatric patient contacts, 205 were treated for allergic complaints. Of those with allergic complaints, 98 of 205 (48%; 95% CI 41%, 55%) had symptoms consistent with anaphylaxis and indications for epinephrine. Of these 98, 53 (54%, 95% CI 44%, 64%) were given epinephrine by EMS or prior to EMS arrival. Among the patients in anaphylaxis not given epinephrine prior to EMS arrival, 6 (12%; 95% CI 3%, 21%) received epinephrine from EMS, 10 (20%; 95% CI 9%, 30%) received diphenhydramine only, 9 (18%, 95% CI 7%-28%) received only albuterol and 17 (33%, 95% CI 20%-46%) received both albuterol and diphenhydramine. 9 patients in anaphylaxis received no treatment prior to arriving to the emergency department (18%, 95% CI 7%-28%). In pediatric patients who met criteria for anaphylaxis and the use of epinephrine, only 54% received epinephrine and the overwhelming majority received it prior to EMS arrival. EMS personnel may not be treating anaphylaxis appropriately with epinephrine.

  View details for DOI 10.3109/10903127.2015.1086843

  View details for PubMedID 26555274