Abstract:What was surprising about Karvonen et al.'s publication? 1 Very little was surprising for many of us who work in children's hospitals. What is new and refreshing is seeing data that our personal experiences of bigotry and racism are not just anecdotes but clearly can provide disincentives to stay in such a working environment as a resident, fellow, or faculty. In this well-constructed single-center study, Karvonen et al. used a mixed-method approach to identify racism in a NICU located in San Francisco. The nature of the study design, mixed method, and the observation that this study was done in a single center provides some evidence of racism. Still, the results of this study cannot be extrapolated to experiences outside the single NICU. The study addresses a systematic approach to understanding the staff and families' perception of the patient's treatment. Too often, the child cannot voice their complaints or concerns. The observation that staff witnessed parent's experiencing racism than parents reporting racism reinforces the challenges in the workplace for non-white staff, medical students, residents, fellows, and faculty. Where do you draw the line and report the covert, overt racism or unprofessional behavior? In my narrow experience, despite the rhetoric that all children and their parents should be treated the same in a children's hospital, rarely have I seen published data or parent-pediatric satisfaction information based on race to determine the fidelity to this aspirational goal. When I asked for such data after five site visits for hematology-oncology programs over the last decade, I have yet to be provided patient-driven data demonstrating that there is any difference in parent-patient experience based on race.

Who is accountable for stopping racism in our children's hospitals?