Collecting patient race/ethnicity and primary language data in ambulatory care settings: a case study in methodology.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Palaniappan LP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2754558 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Collecting patient race/ethnicity and primary language data in ambulatory care settings: a case study in methodology.
Palaniappan Latha P LP Wong Eric C EC Shin Jessica J JJ Moreno Maria R MR Otero-Sabogal Regina R
Health services research 20090622 5 Pt 1
<h4>Objective</h4>To collect patient race/ethnicity and language (r/e/l) in an ambulatory care setting.<h4>Data sources/study setting</h4>The Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF), December 2006-May 2008.<h4>Study design</h4>Three pilot studies: (1) Comparing mail versus telephone versus clinic visit questionnaire distribution; (2) comparing the front desk method (FDM) versus exam room method (ERM) in the clinic visit; and (3) determining resource allocation necessary for data entry.<h4>Data colle ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe data collection methods and to audit staff data entry of patient self-reported race/ethnicity/ancestry and preferred spoken language (R/E/A/L) information.Data source/study settingLarge mixed payer outpatient health care organization in Northern California, June 2009.Study designSecondary analysis of an audit planned and executed by the Department of Clinical Services.Data collection/extraction methodsWe analyzed concordance between patient written responses and staff data entry.Principal findingsThe data entry accuracy rate across questions was high, ranging from 92 to 97 percent. Inaccuracies were due to human error (62 percent), flaws in system design (2 percent), or some combination of both (35 percent).ConclusionsThis study highlights the high accuracy of patient self-reported R/E/A/L data entry and identifies some areas for improvement in staff training and technical system design to facilitate further progress.
| S-EPMC3447251 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceEmergency department (ED) triage substantially affects how long patients wait for care but triage scoring relies on few objective criteria. Prior studies suggest that Black and Hispanic patients receive unequal triage scores, paralleled by disparities in the depth of physician evaluations.ObjectivesTo examine whether racial disparities in triage scores and physician evaluations are present across a multicenter network of academic and community hospitals and evaluate whether patients who do not speak English face similar disparities.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a cross-sectional, multicenter study examining adults presenting between February 28, 2019, and January 1, 2023, across the Mass General Brigham Integrated Health Care System, encompassing 7 EDs: 2 urban academic hospitals and 5 community hospitals. Analysis included all patients presenting with 1 of 5 common chief symptoms.ExposuresEmergency department nurse-led triage and physician evaluation.Main outcomes and measuresAverage Triage Emergency Severity Index [ESI] score and average visit work relative value units [wRVUs] were compared across symptoms and between individual minority racial and ethnic groups and White patients.ResultsThere were 249 829 visits (149 861 female [60%], American Indian or Alaska Native 0.2%, Asian 3.3%, Black 11.8%, Hispanic 18.8%, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander <0.1%, White 60.8%, and patients identifying as Other race or ethnicity 5.1%). Median age was 48 (IQR, 29-66) years. White patients had more acute ESI scores than Hispanic or Other patients across all symptoms (eg, chest pain: Hispanic, 2.68 [95% CI, 2.67-2.69]; White, 2.55 [95% CI, 2.55-2.56]; Other, 2.66 [95% CI, 2.64-2.68]; P < .001) and Black patients across most symptoms (nausea/vomiting: Black, 2.97 [95% CI, 2.96-2.99]; White: 2.90 [95% CI, 2.89-2.91]; P < .001). These differences were reversed for wRVUs (chest pain: Black, 4.32 [95% CI, 4.25-4.39]; Hispanic, 4.13 [95% CI, 4.08-4.18]; White 3.55 [95% CI, 3.52-3.58]; Other 3.96 [95% CI, 3.84-4.08]; P < .001). Similar patterns were seen for patients whose primary language was not English.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, patients who identified as Black, Hispanic, and Other race and ethnicity were assigned less acute ESI scores than their White peers despite having received more involved physician workups, suggesting some degree of mistriage. Clinical decision support systems might reduce these disparities but would require careful calibration to avoid replicating bias.
| S-EPMC10570890 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare disparities are well documented across multiple subspecialties in orthopaedics. The widespread implementation of telemedicine risks worsening these disparities if not carefully executed, despite original assumptions that telemedicine improves overall access to care. Telemedicine also poses unique challenges such as potential language or technological barriers that may alter previously described patterns in orthopaedic disparities.Questions/purposesAre the proportions of patients who use telemedicine across orthopaedic services different among (1) racial and ethnic minorities, (2) non-English speakers, and (3) patients insured through Medicaid during a 10-week period after the implementation of telemedicine in our healthcare system compared with in-person visits during a similar time period in 2019?MethodsThis was a retrospective comparative study using electronic medical record data to compare new patients establishing orthopaedic care via outpatient telemedicine at two academic urban medical centers between March 2020 and May 2020 with new orthopaedic patients during the same 10-week period in 2019. A total of 11,056 patients were included for analysis, with 1760 in the virtual group and 9296 in the control group. Unadjusted analyses demonstrated patients in the virtual group were younger (median age 57 years versus 59 years; p < 0.001), but there were no differences with regard to gender (56% female versus 56% female; p = 0.66). We used self-reported race or ethnicity as our primary independent variable, with primary language and insurance status considered secondarily. Unadjusted and multivariable adjusted analyses were performed for our primary and secondary predictors using logistic regression. We also assessed interactions between race or ethnicity, primary language, and insurance type.ResultsAfter adjusting for age, gender, subspecialty, insurance, and median household income, we found that patients who were Hispanic (odds ratio 0.59 [95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.91]; p = 0.02) or Asian were less likely (OR 0.73 [95% CI 0.53 to 0.99]; p = 0.04) to be seen through telemedicine than were patients who were white. After controlling for confounding variables, we also found that speakers of languages other than English or Spanish were less likely to have a telemedicine visit than were people whose primary language was English (OR 0.34 [95% CI 0.18 to 0.65]; p = 0.001), and that patients insured through Medicaid were less likely to be seen via telemedicine than were patients who were privately insured (OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.69 to 0.98]; p = 0.03).ConclusionDespite initial promises that telemedicine would help to bridge gaps in healthcare, our results demonstrate disparities in orthopaedic telemedicine use based on race or ethnicity, language, and insurance type. The telemedicine group was slightly younger, which we do not believe undermines the findings. As healthcare moves toward increased telemedicine use, we suggest several approaches to ensure that patients of certain racial, ethnic, or language groups do not experience disparate barriers to care. These might include individual patient- or provider-level approaches like expanded telemedicine schedules to accommodate weekends and evenings, institutional investment in culturally conscious outreach materials such as advertisements on community transport systems, or government-level provisions such as reimbursement for telephone-only encounters.Level of evidenceLevel III, therapeutic study.
| S-EPMC8208394 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceRacial and ethnic disparities in access to health care may result from discrimination.ObjectivesTo identify differences in the rates at which patients belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups are offered primary care appointments and the number of days they wait for their primary care appointment and to understand the mechanisms by which discrimination occurs.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used 7 simulated black, Hispanic, and white patient callers to request appointments from 804 randomized primary care offices in 2 urban centers in Texas from November 2017 to February 2018. Data analysis was conducted between February and December 2018.ExposuresResearch assistants called randomly assigned offices to schedule an appointment, supplying the same basic information. Race and ethnicity were signaled through callers' names and voices.Main outcomes and measuresAppointment offer rates, days to appointment, and questions asked during the call.ResultsOf the 7 callers (age range, 18-29 years), 2 (28.6%) self-identified as non-Hispanic black, 3 (42.9%) self-identified as non-Hispanic white, and 2 (28.6%) self-identified as Hispanic. Of the 804 calls they made, 299 (37.2%) were from simulated white callers, 215 (26.7%) were from simulated black callers, and 290 (36.1%) were from simulated Hispanic callers. Overall, 582 callers (72.4%) were offered appointments. In unadjusted models, black and Hispanic callers were more likely to be offered an appointment than white callers (black callers, 32.2 [95% CI, 25.1-39.3] percentage points more likely; P < .001; Hispanic callers, 21.1 [95% CI, 13.7-28.5] percentage points more likely; P < .001). However, after adjusting for whether insurance status was revealed, this statistical significance was lost. In adjusted models, black callers were 44.0 (95% CI, 36.2-51.8) percentage points more likely to be asked about their insurance status than white callers (P < .001), and Hispanic callers were 25.3 (95% CI, 17.1-33.5) percentage points more likely to be asked about their insurance status (P < .001) than white callers. Black and Hispanic callers received appointments further in the future than white callers (black callers: marginal effect estimate, 3.650; 95% CI, 0.579 to 6.721; P = .08; Hispanic callers: marginal effect estimate, 2.644; 95% CI, -0.496 to 5.784; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, black and Hispanic patients were more likely to be offered an appointment, but they were asked more frequently about their insurance status than white callers. Black and Hispanic callers experienced longer wait times than white patients, indicating a barrier to timely access to primary care.
| S-EPMC6991290 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveDescribe association of patient satisfaction with interpersonal processes of care (IPC) by race/ethnicity.Data sources/study settingInterview with 1,664 patients (African Americans, English- and Spanish-speaking Latinos, and non-Latino Whites).Study design/methodsCross-sectional study of seven IPC measures (communication, patient-centered decision making, and interpersonal style) and three satisfaction measures (satisfaction with physicians, satisfaction with health care, and willingness to recommend physicians). Regression models explored associations, controlling for patient characteristics.Principal findingsIn all groups: patient-centered decision making was positively associated with satisfaction with physicians (B=0.10, p<.0001) and health care (B=0.07, p<.001), and "recommend physicians" (OR=1.23, 95 percent CI 1.06, 1.43); discrimination was negatively associated with satisfaction with physicians (B=0.09, p<.05) and health care (B=0.17, p<.001). Unclear communication was associated with less satisfaction with physicians among Spanish-speaking Latinos. Explaining results was positively associated with all satisfaction outcomes for all groups with one exception (no association with satisfaction with physicians for Latino Spanish-speakers). Compassion/respect was positively associated with all outcomes for all groups with two exceptions (no association with satisfaction with health care among English-speaking Latinos and Whites).ConclusionsAll IPC measures were associated with at least one satisfaction outcome for all groups except for unclear communication.
| S-EPMC2714869 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine whether confidence in primary healthcare (PHC) differs among ethnic-linguistic groups and which PHC experiences are associated with confidence.DesignA cross-sectional study where patient surveys were administered using random digit dialling. Regression models identify whether ethnic-linguistic group remains significantly associated with confidence in PHC.SettingBritish Columbia, Canada.Main outcome measuresConfidence in PHC measured using a 0-10 scale, where a higher score indicates increased confidence in the ability to get needed PHC services.ParticipantsCommunity-dwelling adults in the following ethnic-linguistic groups: English-speaking Chinese, Chinese-speaking Chinese, English-speaking South Asians, Punjabi-speaking South Asians and English-speakers of presumed European descent.FindingsBased on a sample of 1211 respondents, confidence in PHC differed by ethnicity and the ability to speak English. Most of the differences in confidence by ethnic-linguistic group can be explained by various aspects of care experience. Patient experiences associated with lower confidence in PHC were: if care was received outside Canada, having to wait months to see their regular doctor and rating the quality of healthcare as good or fair/poor. Better patient experiences of their doctor being concerned about their feelings and being respectful and if they found wait times acceptable were associated with higher levels of confidence in PHC. The final regression model explained 30% of the variance.ConclusionsImproving the delivery of PHC services through positive interactions between patients and their usual provider and acceptability of wait times are examples of how the PHC system can be strengthened.
| S-EPMC3939667 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Collection of data on race, ethnicity, and language preference is required as part of the "meaningful use" of electronic health records (EHRs). These data serve as a foundation for interventions to reduce health disparities.Our aim was to compare the accuracy of EHR-recorded data on race, ethnicity, and language preference to that reported directly by patients.Data collected as part of a tobacco cessation intervention for minority and low-income smokers across a network of 13 primary care clinics (n = 569).Patients were more likely to self-report Hispanic ethnicity (19.6 % vs. 16.6 %, p < 0.001) and African American race (27.0 % vs. 20.4 %, p < 0.001) than was reported in the EHR. Conversely, patients were less likely to complete the survey in Spanish than the language preference noted in the EHR suggested (5.1 % vs. 6.3 %, p < 0.001). Thirty percent of whites self-reported identification with at least one other racial or ethnic group, as did 37.0 % of Hispanics, and 41.0 % of African Americans. Over one-third of EHR-documented Spanish speakers elected to take the survey in English. One-fifth of individuals who took the survey in Spanish were recorded in the EHR as English-speaking.We demonstrate important inaccuracies and the need for better processes to document race/ ethnicity and language preference in EHRs.
| S-EPMC4441665 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study examined the measurement equivalence of the K6 across diverse racial/ethnic and linguistic groups in the U.S. differential item functioning analyses using item response theory were conducted among 44,846 U.S. adults drawn from the California Health Interview Survey. Results show that four items ("nervous," "restless," "depressed," and "everything an effort") varied significantly across races/ethnicities and four items ("nervous," "hopeless," "restless," and "depressed") varied significantly across languages. In additional effect size analyses designed to separate effects of race/ethnicity from language, the structure of the White English group was substantially different from both the Hispanic/Latino English group and Hispanic/Latino Spanish group, whereas the Hispanic/Latino Spanish group was not different from the Hispanic/Latino English group. The findings suggest that there was evident measurement nonequivalence in the K6 among racially/ethnically and linguistically diverse adults and that the observed nonequivalence in the K6 appears to be driven by language rather than race/ethnicity.
| S-EPMC5468522 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceHealth care disparities are well-documented among children based on race, ethnicity, and language for care. An agenda that outlines research priorities for disparities in pediatric emergency care (PEC) is lacking.ObjectiveTo investigate research priorities for disparities in PEC among medical personnel, researchers, and health care-affiliated community organizations.Design, setting, and participantsIn this survey study, a modified Delphi approach was used to investigate research priorities for disparities in PEC. An initial list of research priorities was developed by a group of experienced PEC investigators in 2021. Partners iteratively assessed the list through 2 rounds of electronic surveys using Likert-type responses in late 2021 and early 2022. Priorities were defined as achieving consensus if they received a score of highest priority or priority by at least 60% of respondents. Asynchronous engagement of participants via online web-conferencing platforms and email correspondence with electronic survey administration was used. Partners were individuals and groups involved in PEC. Participants represented interest groups, research and medical personnel organizations, health care partners, and laypersons with roles in community and family hospital advisory councils. Participants were largely from the US, with input from international PEC research networks.OutcomeConsensus agenda of research priorities to identify and address health care disparities in PEC.ResultsPEC investigators generated an initial list of 27 potential priorities. Surveys were completed by 38 of 47 partners (80.6%) and 30 of 38 partners (81.1%) in rounds 1 and 2, respectively. Among 30 respondents who completed both rounds, there were 7 family or community partners and 23 medical or research partners, including 4 international PEC research networks. A total of 12 research priorities achieved the predetermined consensus threshold: (1) systematic efforts to reduce disparities; (2) race, ethnicity, and language data collection and reporting; (3) recognizing and mitigating clinician implicit bias; (4) mental health disparities; (5) social determinants of health; (6) language and literacy; (7) acute pain-management disparities; (8) quality of care equity metrics; (9) shared decision-making; (10) patient experience; (11) triage and acuity score assignment; and (12) inclusive research participation.Conclusions and relevanceThese results suggest a research priority agenda that may be used as a guide for investigators, research networks, organizations, and funding agencies to engage in and support high-priority disparities research topics in PEC.
| S-EPMC10644218 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThere are racial inequities in health care access and quality in the United States. It is unknown whether such differences for racial and ethnic minority beneficiaries differ between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare or whether access and quality are better for minority beneficiaries in 1 of the 2 programs.ObjectiveTo compare differences in rates of enrollment, ambulatory care access, and ambulatory care quality by race and ethnicity in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare.Design, setting, and participantsExploratory observational cohort study of a nationally representative sample of 45 833 person-years (26 887 persons) in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey from 2015 to 2018, comparing differences in program enrollment and measures of access and quality by race and ethnicity.ExposuresMinority race and ethnicity (Black, Hispanic, Native American, or Asian/Pacific Islander) vs White or multiracial; Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare enrollment.Main outcomes and measuresSix patient-reported measures of ambulatory care access (whether a beneficiary had a usual source of care in the past year, had a primary care clinician usual source of care, or had a specialist visit) and quality (influenza vaccination, pneumonia vaccination, and colon cancer screening).ResultsThe final sample included 6023 persons (mean age, 68.9 [SD, 12.6] years; 57.3% women) from minority groups and 20 864 persons (mean age, 71.9 [SD, 10.8] years; 54.9% women) from White or multiracial groups, who accounted for 9816 and 36 017 person-years, respectively. Comparing Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare among minority beneficiaries, those in Medicare Advantage had significantly better rates of access to a primary care clinician usual source of care (79.1% vs 72.5%; adjusted marginal difference, 4.0%; 95% CI, 1.0%-6.9%), influenza vaccinations (67.3% vs 63.0%; adjusted marginal difference, 5.2%; 95% CI, 1.9%-8.5%), pneumonia vaccinations (70.7% vs 64.6%; adjusted marginal difference, 6.1%; 95% CI, 2.7%-9.4%), and colon cancer screenings (69.4% vs 61.1%; adjusted marginal difference, 7.1%; 95% CI, 3.8%-10.3%). Comparing minority vs White or multiracial beneficiaries across both programs, minority beneficiaries had significantly lower rates of access to a primary care clinician usual source of care (adjusted marginal difference, 4.7%; 95% CI, 2.5%-6.8%), specialist visits (adjusted marginal difference, 10.8%; 95% CI, 8.3%-13.3%), influenza vaccinations (adjusted marginal difference, 4.3%; 95% CI, 1.2%-7.4%), and pneumonia vaccinations (adjusted marginal difference, 6.4%; 95% CI, 3.9%-9.0%). The interaction of race and ethnicity with insurance type was not statistically significant for any of the 6 outcome measures.Conclusions and relevanceIn this exploratory study of Medicare beneficiaries in 2015-2018, enrollment in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare was significantly associated with better outcomes for access and quality among minority beneficiaries; however, minority beneficiaries were significantly more likely to experience worse outcomes for most access and quality measures than White or multiracial beneficiaries in both programs.
| S-EPMC8371568 | biostudies-literature