G. Sotolongo
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
G. Sotolongo has a total of 10 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Alexandra Van Cleave
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Creighton University
1 shared publication - Grace Folino
Department of Internal Medicine, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, United States
1 shared publication - Kallin Hermann
School of Medicine, Creighton University, Omaha, NE, USA
1 shared publication - L. Ahlers
School of Medicine, Creighton University, Omaha, NE, USA
1 shared publication L. Byrne
School of Medicine, Creighton University, Omaha, NE, USA
1 shared publicationM. Maglasang
School of Medicine, Creighton University, Omaha, NE, USA
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 16 June 2025
- Published by SAGE Publications in Journal of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine
- Vol. 18 (5) , 478-483
Understanding and addressing bias in urine drug screening protocols on high-volume labor and delivery units
Background: The purpose of this study was to understand the current demographics and characteristics of patients undergoing urine drug screening on labor and delivery units with the intention of using this data to create a more evidence-based, equitable policy to reduce bias in the screening process. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed of 509 instances of drug screening occurring for pregnant and recently delivered patients across three hospitals in Omaha, Nebraska. Demographics of patients, including age, race, ethnicity, and insurance status, as well as reasons for drug screening, patient consent, screening results, and disclosure of results, were analyzed to assess patterns in screening. Results: 509 screening instances were evaluated with 324 unique patients. While Black patients made up 11.6% of the overall patient population, they accounted for 26.2% of the patients undergoing urine drug screenings. 2.88% of all patients self-identified as Hispanic; however, they comprised 13.4% of all patients screened. Consent was documented in 11.3% of cases and a reason for obtaining UDS was documented in 61.5% of cases. The most common reasons cited were history of substance use or current use, medical indications, and suspected use without documented history of use. Conclusions: Establishment of more specific, evidence-based policies for urine drug screening may reduce the impact of implicit biases on current screening practices and serve as one avenue to rebuild trust with patients who have historically been marginalized by the medical community.
- 16 June 2025
- Published by SAGE Publications in Journal of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine
- Vol. 18 (5) , 478-483
Understanding and addressing bias in urine drug screening protocols on high-volume labor and delivery units
Background: The purpose of this study was to understand the current demographics and characteristics of patients undergoing urine drug screening on labor and delivery units with the intention of using this data to create a more evidence-based, equitable policy to reduce bias in the screening process. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed of 509 instances of drug screening occurring for pregnant and recently delivered patients across three hospitals in Omaha, Nebraska. Demographics of patients, including age, race, ethnicity, and insurance status, as well as reasons for drug screening, patient consent, screening results, and disclosure of results, were analyzed to assess patterns in screening. Results: 509 screening instances were evaluated with 324 unique patients. While Black patients made up 11.6% of the overall patient population, they accounted for 26.2% of the patients undergoing urine drug screenings. 2.88% of all patients self-identified as Hispanic; however, they comprised 13.4% of all patients screened. Consent was documented in 11.3% of cases and a reason for obtaining UDS was documented in 61.5% of cases. The most common reasons cited were history of substance use or current use, medical indications, and suspected use without documented history of use. Conclusions: Establishment of more specific, evidence-based policies for urine drug screening may reduce the impact of implicit biases on current screening practices and serve as one avenue to rebuild trust with patients who have historically been marginalized by the medical community.