Search

Racial-ethnic minorities receive lower quality and intensity of health care compared with whites across a wide range of preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic services and disease entities. These disparities in health care contribute to continuing racial-ethnic disparities in the burden of illness and death. Several national medical organizations and the Institute of Medicine have issued position papers and recommendations for the elimination of health care disparities. However, physicians in practice are often at a loss for how to translate these principles and recommendations into specific interventions in their own clinical practices. This paper serves as a blueprint for translating principles for the elimination of racial-ethnic disparities in health care into specific actions that are relevant for individual clinical practices. We describe what is known about reducing racial-ethnic disparities in clinical practice and make recommendations for how clinician leaders can apply this evidence to transform their own practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The objective of this paper was to describe primary care prescribers' perspectives on electronic prescribing drug alerts at the point of prescribing.Design: We used a mixed-method study which included clinician surveys (web-based and paper) and focus groups with prescribers and staff.Participants: Prescribers (n = 157) working in one of 64 practices using 1 of 6 e-prescribing technologies in 6 US states completed the quantitative survey and 276 prescribers and staff participated in focus groups.Measurements: The study measures self-reported frequency of overriding of drug alerts; open-ended responses to: "What do you think of the drug alerts your software generates for you?"Results: More than 40% of prescribers indicated they override drug-drug interactions most of the time or always (range by e-prescribing system, 25% to 50%). Participants indicated that the software and the interaction alerts were beneficial to patient safety and valued seeing drug-drug interactions for medications prescribed by others. However, they noted that alerts are too sensitive and often unnecessary. Participant suggestions included: (1) run drug alerts on an active medication list and (2) allow prescribers to set the threshold for severity of alerts.Conclusions: Primary care prescribers recognize the patient safety value of drug prescribing alerts embedded within electronic prescribing software. Improvements to increase specificity and reduce alert overload are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For at least the past two decades, medical educators have worked to improve patient communication and health care delivery to diverse patient populations; despite efforts, patients continue to report prejudice and bias during their clinical encounters. Targeted instruction in implicit bias recognition and management may promote the delivery of equitable care, but students at times resist this instruction. Little guidance exists to overcome this resistance and to engage students in implicit bias instruction; instruction over time could lead to eventual skill development that is necessary to mitigate the influence of implicit bias on clinical practice behaviors.Objective: To explore student perceptions of challenges and opportunities when participating in implicit bias instruction.Approach: We conducted a qualitative study that involved 11 focus groups with medical students across each of the four class years to explore their perceptions of challenges and opportunities related to participating in such instruction. We analyzed transcripts for themes.Key Results: Our analysis suggests a range of attitudes toward implicit bias instruction and identifies contextual factors that may influence these attitudes. The themes were (1) resistance; (2) shame; (3) the negative role of the hidden curriculum; and (4) structural barriers to student engagement. Students expressed resistance to implicit bias instruction; some of these attitudes are fueled from concerns of anticipated shame within the learning environment. Participants also indicated that student engagement in implicit bias instruction was influenced by the hidden curriculum and structural barriers.Conclusions: These insights can inform future curriculum development efforts. Considerations related to instructional design and programmatic decision-making are highlighted. These considerations for implicit bias instruction may provide useful frameworks for educators looking for opportunities to minimize student resistance and maximize engagement in multi-session instruction in implicit bias recognition and management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Workforce projections indicate a potential shortage of up to 31,000 adult primary care providers by the year 2025. Approximately 80 % of internal medicine residents and nearly two-thirds of primary care internal medicine residents do not plan to have a career in primary care or general internal medicine.Objective: We aimed to explore contextual and programmatic factors within primary care residency training environments that may influence career choices.Design: This was a qualitative study based on semi-structured, in-person interviews.Participants: Three primary care internal medicine residency programs were purposefully selected to represent a diversity of training environments. Second and third year residents were interviewed.Approach: We used a survey guide developed from pilot interviews and existing literature. Three members of the research team independently coded the transcripts and developed the code structure based on the constant comparative method. The research team identified emerging themes and refined codes. ATLAS.ti was used for the analysis.Key Results: We completed 24 interviews (12 second-year residents, and 12 third-year residents). The age range was 27-39 years. Four recurrent themes characterized contextual and programmatic factors contributing to residents' decision-making: resident expectations of a career in primary care, navigation of the boundary between social needs and medical needs, mentorship and perceptions of primary care, and structural features of the training program.Conclusions: Addressing aspects of training that may discourage residents from careers in primary care such as lack of diversity in outpatient experiences and resident frustration with their inability to address social needs of patients, and strengthening aspects of training that may encourage interests in careers in primary care such as mentorship and protected time away from inpatient responsibilities during primary care rotations, may increase the proportion of residents enrolled in primary care training programs who pursue a career in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Religiously affiliated hospitals provide nearly 20% of US beds, and many prohibit certain end-of-life and reproductive health treatments. Little is known about physician experiences in religious institutions.Objective: Assess primary care physicians' experiences and beliefs regarding conflict with religious hospital policies for patient care.Design: Cross-sectional survey.Participants: General internists, family physicians, and general practitioners from the AMA Masterfile.Main Measures: In a questionnaire mailed in 2007, we asked physicians whether they had worked in a religiously affiliated hospital or practice, whether they had experienced conflict with the institution over religiously based patient care policies and how they believed physicians should respond to such conflicts. We used chi-square and multivariate logistic regression to examine associations between physicians' demographic and religious characteristics and their responses.Key Results: Of 879 eligible physicians, 446 (51%) responded. In analyses adjusting for survey design, 43% had worked in a religiously affiliated institution. Among these, 19% had experienced conflict over religiously based policies. Most physicians (86%) believed when clinical judgment conflicts with religious hospital policy, physicians should refer patients to another institution. Compared with physicians ages 26-29 years, older physicians were less likely to have experienced conflict with religiously based policies [odds ratio (95% confidence interval) compared with 30-34 years: 0.02 (0.00-0.11); 35-46 years: 0.07 (0.01-0.72); 47-60 years: 0.02 (0.00-0.10)]. Compared with those who never attend religious services, those who do attend were less likely to have experienced conflict [attend once a month or less: odds ratio 0.06 (0.01-0.29); attend twice a month or more: 0.22 (0.05-0.98)]. Respondents with no religious affiliation were more likely than others to believe doctors should disregard religiously based policies that conflict with clinical judgment (13% vs. 3%; p = 0.005).Conclusions: Hospitals and policy-makers may need to balance the competing claims of physician autonomy and religiously based institutional policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify and describe unintended adverse consequences related to clinical workflow when implementing or using computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems.Methods: We analyzed qualitative data from field observations and formal interviews gathered over a three-year period at five hospitals in three organizations. Five multidisciplinary researchers worked together to identify themes related to the impacts of CPOE systems on clinical workflow.Results: CPOE systems can affect clinical work by 1) introducing or exposing human/computer interaction problems, 2) altering the pace, sequencing, and dynamics of clinical activities, 3) providing only partial support for the work activities of all types of clinical personnel, 4) reducing clinical situation awareness, and 5) poorly reflecting organizational policy and procedure.Conclusions: As CPOE systems evolve, those involved must take care to mitigate the many unintended adverse effects these systems have on clinical workflow. Workflow issues resulting from CPOE can be mitigated by iteratively altering both clinical workflow and the CPOE system until a satisfactory fit is achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent reports from the Institute of Medicine emphasize patient-centered care and cross-cultural training as a means of improving the quality of medical care and eliminating racial and ethnic disparities.Objective: To determine whether, controlling for training received in medical school or during residency, resident physician socio-cultural characteristics influence self-perceived preparedness and skill in delivering cross-cultural care.Design: National survey of resident physicians.Participants: A probability sample of residents in seven specialties in their final year of training at US academic health centers.Measurement: Nine resident characteristics were analyzed. Differences in preparedness and skill were assessed using the chi(2) statistic and multivariate logistic regression.Results: Fifty-eight percent (2047/3500) of residents responded. The most important factor associated with improved perceived skill level in performing selected tasks or services believed to be useful in treating culturally diverse patients was having received cross-cultural skills training during residency (OR range 1.71-4.22). Compared with white residents, African American physicians felt more prepared to deal with patients with distrust in the US healthcare system (OR 1.63) and with racial or ethnic minorities (OR 1.61), Latinos reported feeling more prepared to deal with new immigrants (OR 1.88) and Asians reported feeling more prepared to deal with patients with health beliefs at odds with Western medicine (1.43).Conclusions: Cross-cultural care skills training is associated with increased self-perceived preparedness to care for diverse patient populations providing support for the importance of such training in graduate medical education. In addition, selected resident characteristics are associated with being more or less prepared for different aspects of cross-cultural care. This underscores the need to both include medical residents from diverse backgrounds in all training programs and tailor such programs to individual resident needs in order to maximize the chances that such training is likely to have an impact on the quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-administered computerized questionnaires represent a novel tool to assist primary care physicians in the delivery of preventive health care.Objective: The aim of this study was to assess patient-reported ease of use with a self-administered tablet computer-based questionnaire in routine clinical care.Design: All patients seen in a university-based primary care practice were asked to provide routine screening information using a touch-screen tablet computer-based questionnaire. Patients reported difficulty using the tablet computer after completion of their first questionnaire.Patients: Ten thousand nine hundred ninety-nine patients completed the questionnaire between January 2004 and January 2006.Measurements: We calculated rates of reporting difficulty (no difficulty, some difficulty, or a lot of difficulty) using the tablet computers based on patient age, sex, race, educational attainment, marital status, and number of comorbid medical conditions. We constructed multivariable ordered logistic models to identify predictors of increased self-reported difficulty using the computer.Results: The majority of patients (84%) reported no difficulty using the tablet computers to complete the questionnaire, with only 3% reporting a lot of difficulty. Significant predictors of reporting more difficulty included increasing age [odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.05)]; Asian race (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.8-2.9); African American race (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2-1.6); less than a high school education (OR 3.0, 95% CI 2.6-3.4); and the presence of comorbid medical conditions (1-2: OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-1.5; > or =3: OR 1.7 95% CI 1.5-2.1).Conclusions: The majority of primary care patients reported no difficulty using a self-administered tablet computer-based questionnaire. While computerized questionnaires present opportunities to collect routine screening information from patients, attention must be paid to vulnerable groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Language barriers in medical care are a large and growing problem in the United States. Most research has focused on how language barriers affect patients. Less is known of the physician perspective and the efforts they are making to overcome these barriers.Objective: To learn about current approaches to communicating with limited English-proficient (LEP) patients and the associated financial and nonfinancial constraints that private practice physicians and managers perceive in providing these services.Design: Computer-assisted telephone focus groups with open-ended discussion guide.Setting: Small private practices in geographic areas that have experienced recent dramatic increases in LEP populations.Participants: Primary care physicians, specialists, and practice managers.Approach: Focus group transcripts were systematically coded using grounded theory analysis. The research team then identified common themes that arose across the groups.Results: Citing the cost, inaccessibility, and inconvenience of using professional interpreters, physicians commonly used family and friends as interpreters. Few recalled any actual experience with professional interpreters or were well-informed about the cost of their services. Physicians and office managers voiced uniform concern about how language barriers impede quality and safety of patient care and increased malpractice risk.Conclusions: Health care providers in private practice recognize the importance of overcoming language barriers. However, perceived barriers to implementing cost-effective strategies to these barriers are high. Physicians in private practice would benefit from information about how to best overcome language barriers in their practices efficiently and affordably. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prostate cancer screening (PCS) is controversial. Ideally, patients should understand the risks and benefits of screening before undergoing PSA testing. This study assessed whether primary care physicians routinely discuss PCS and explored the barriers to and facilitators of these discussions.Methods: Qualitative pilot study involving in-depth, semistructured interviews with 18 purposively sampled, academic and community-based primary care physicians. Barriers and facilitators of PCS discussions were ascertained using both interviews and chart-stimulated recall--a technique utilizing patient charts to probe recall and provide context to physician decision-making during clinic encounters. Analysis was performed using consensus conferences based on grounded theory techniques.Results: All 18 participating physicians reported that they generally discussed PCS with patients, though 6 reported sometimes ordering PSA tests without discussion. A PCS discussion occurred in only 16 (36%) of the 44 patient-physician encounters when patients were due for PCS that also met criteria for chart-stimulated recall. Barriers to PCS discussion were patient comorbidity, limited education/health literacy, prior refusal of care, physician forgetfulness, acute-care visits, and lack of time. Facilitators of PCS discussion included patient-requested screening, highly educated patients, family history of prostate cancer, African-American race, visits for routine physicals, review of previous PSA results, extra time during encounters, and reminder systems.Conclusions: PCS discussions sometimes do not occur. Important barriers to discussion are inadequate time for health maintenance, physician forgetfulness, and patient characteristics. Future research should explore using educational and decision support interventions to involve more patients in PCS decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health services research has documented the magnitude of health care variations. Few studies focus on provider level sources of variation in clinical decision making-for example, which primary care providers are likely to follow clinical guidelines, with which types of patient.Objectives: To estimate: (1) the extent of primary care provider adherence to practice guidelines and the unconfounded influence of (2) patient attributes and (3) physician characteristics on adherence with clinical practice guidelines.Design: In a factorial experiment, primary care providers were shown clinically authentic video vignettes with actors portrayed different "patients" with identical signs of coronary heart disease (CHD). Different types of providers were asked how they would manage the different "patients" with identical CHD symptoms. Measures were taken to protect external validity.Results: Adherence to some guidelines is high (over 50% of physicians would follow a third of the recommended actions), yet there is low adherence to many of them (less than 20% would follow another third). Female patients are less likely than males to receive 4 of 5 types of physical examination (p < .03); older patients are less likely to be advised to stop smoking (p < .03). Race and SES of patients had no effect on provider adherence to guidelines. A physicians' level of experience (age) appears to be important with certain patients.Conclusions: Physician adherence with guidelines varies with different types of "patient" and with the length of clinical experience. With this evidence it is possible to appropriately target interventions to reduce health care variations by improving physician adherence with clinical guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite uncertain benefit, many women over age 80 (oldest-old) receive screening mammography.Objective: To explore decision-making and physician counseling of oldest-old women around mammography screening.Design: Qualitative research using in-depth semi-structured interviews.Participants: Twenty-three women aged 80 or older who received care at a large academic primary care practice (13 had undergone mammography screening in the past 2 years) and 16 physicians at the same center.Approach: We asked patients and physicians to describe factors influencing mammography screening decisions of oldest-old women. We asked physicians to describe their counseling about screening to the oldest-old.Results: Patients and/or physicians identified the importance of physician influence, patient preferences, system factors, and social influences on screening decisions. Although physicians felt that patient's health affected screening decisions, few patients felt that health mattered. Three types of elderly patients were identified: (1) women enthusiastic about screening mammography; (2) women opposed to screening mammography; and (3) women without a preference who followed their physician's recommendation. However, physician counseling about mammography screening to elderly women varies; some individualize discussions; others encourage screening; few discourage screening. Physicians report that discussions about stopping screening can be uncomfortable and time consuming. Physicians suggest that more data could facilitate these discussions.Conclusions: Some oldest-old women have strong opinions about screening mammography while others are influenced by physicians. Discussions about stopping screening are challenging for physicians. More data about the benefits and risks of mammography screening for women aged 80 or older could inform patients and improve provider counseling to lead to more rational use of mammography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Differences in provider-patient health perceptions have been associated with poor patient outcomes, but little is known about how patients' cultural identities may be related to discordant perceptions.Objective: To examine whether health care providers and American-Indian patients disagreed on patient health status ratings, and how differences related to these patients' strength of affiliation with American-Indian and white-American cultural identities.Design: Survey of patients and providers following primary care office visits.Participants: One hundred and fifteen patients > or =50 years and 7 health care providers at a Cherokee Nation clinic. All patients were of American-Indian race, but varied in strength of affiliation with separate measures of American-Indian and white-American cultural identities.Measurements: Self-reported sociodemographic and cultural characteristics, and a 5-point rating of patient's health completed by both patients and providers. Fixed-effects regression modeling examined the relationships of patients' cultural identities with differences in provider-patient health rating.Results: In 40% of medical visits, providers and patients rated health differently, with providers typically judging patients healthier than patients' self-rating. Provider-patient differences were greater for patients affiliating weakly with white cultural identity than for those affiliating strongly (adjusted mean difference=0.70 vs 0.12, P=.01). Differences in ratings were not associated with the separate measure of affiliation with American-Indian identity.Conclusions: American-Indian patients, especially those who affiliate weakly with white-American cultural identity, often perceive health status differently from their providers. Future research should explore sources of discordant perceptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]