Dataset Information

A critical ethnographic study of discriminatory social practice during clinical practice in emergency medical care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Post-apartheid, South Africa adopted an inclusive education system that was intended to be free of unfair discrimination. This qualitative study examines the experiences and perceptions of racial discrimination between Emergency Medical Care (EMC) students, clinical mentors, and patients within an Emergency Medical Service (EMS) during clinical practice. Understanding the nature of such discrimination is critical for redress.

Methods

Within the conceptual framework of Critical Race Theory, critical ethnographic methodology explored how discriminatory social practice manifests during clinical practice. Semi-structured interviews enabled thematic analysis. We purposively sampled 13 undergraduate EMC students and 5 Emergency Care (EC) providers.

Results

EMC student participants reported experiences of racial and gender discrimination during work-integrated learning (WIL) as they were treated differently on the basis of race and gender. Language was used as an intentional barrier to isolate students from the patients during WIL because EC providers would intentionally speak in a language not understood by the student and failed to translate vital medical information about the case. This conduct prevented some students from engaging in clinical decision-making.

Conclusions

Unfair discrimination within the pre-hospital setting have an impact on the learning opportunities of EMC students. Such practice violates basic human rights and has the potential to negatively affect the clinical management of patients, thus it has the potential to violate patient's rights. This study confirms the existence of discriminatory practices during WIL which is usually unreported. The lack of a structured approach to redress the discrimination causes a lack of inclusivity and unequal access to clinical education in a public clinical platform.

SUBMITTER: Maake TN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8353834 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe how processes of primary care access influence decisions to seek help at the emergency department (ED).DesignEthnographic case study combining non-participant observation, informal and formal interviewing.SettingSix general practitioner (GP) practices located in three commissioning organisations in England.Participants and methodsReception areas at each practice were observed over the course of a working week (73?hours in total). Practice documents were collected and clinical and non-clinical staff were interviewed (n=19). Patients with recent ED use, or a carer if aged 16 and under, were interviewed (n=29).ResultsPast experience of accessing GP care recursively informed patient decisions about where to seek urgent care, and difficulties with access were implicit in patient accounts of ED use. GP practices had complicated, changeable systems for appointments. This made navigating appointment booking difficult for patients and reception staff, and engendered a mistrust of the system. Increasingly, the telephone was the instrument of demand management, but there were unintended consequences for access. Some patient groups, such as those with English as an additional language, were particularly disadvantaged, and the varying patient and staff semantic of words like 'urgent' and 'emergency' was exacerbated during telephone interactions. Poor integration between in-hours and out-of-hours care and patient perceptions of the quality of care accessible at their GP practice also informed ED use.ConclusionsThis study provides important insight into the implicit role of primary care access on the use of ED. Discourses around 'inappropriate' patient demand neglect to recognise that decisions about where to seek urgent care are based on experiential knowledge. Simply speeding up access to primary care or increasing its volume is unlikely to alleviate rising ED use. Systems for accessing care need to be transparent, perceptibly fair and appropriate to the needs of diverse patient groups.

Project description:IntroductionAn adaptive guideline development method, as opposed to a de novo guideline development, is dependent on access to existing high-quality up-to-date clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). We described the characteristics and quality of CPGs relevant to prehospital care worldwide, in order to strengthen guideline development in low-resource settings for emergency care.MethodsWe conducted a descriptive study of a database of international CPGs relevant to emergency care produced by the African Federation for Emergency Medicine (AFEM) CPG project in 2016. Guideline quality was assessed with the AGREE II tool, independently and in duplicate. End-user documents such as protocols, care pathways, and algorithms were excluded. Data were imported, managed, and analysed in STATA 14 and R.ResultsIn total, 276 guidelines were included. Less than 2% of CPGs originated from low- and middle income-countries (LMICs); only 15% (n?=?38) of guidelines were prehospital specific, and there were no CPGs directly applicable to prehospital care in LMICs. Most guidelines used de novo methods (58%, n?=?150) and were produced by professional societies or associations (63%, n?=?164), with the minority developed by international bodies (3%, n?=?7). National bodies, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), produced higher quality guidelines when compared to international guidelines, professional societies, and clinician/academic-produced guidelines. Guideline quality varied across topics, subpopulations and producers. Resource-constrained guideline developers that cannot afford de novo guideline development have access to an expanding pool of high-quality prehospital guidelines to translate to their local setting.DiscussionAlthough some high-quality CPGs exist relevant to emergency care, none directly address the needs of prehospital care in LMICs, especially in Africa. Strengthening guideline development capacity, including adaptive guideline development methods that use existing high-quality CPGs, is a priority.

Project description:Early identification of nontrauma patients in need of critical care services in the emergency setting may improve triage decisions and facilitate regionalization of critical care.To determine the out-of-hospital clinical predictors of critical illness and to characterize the performance of a simple score for out-of-hospital prediction of development of critical illness during hospitalization.Population-based cohort study of an emergency medical services (EMS) system in greater King County, Washington (excluding metropolitan Seattle), that transports to 16 receiving facilities.Nontrauma, non-cardiac arrest adult patients transported to a hospital by King County EMS from 2002 through 2006. Eligible records with complete data (N = 144,913) were linked to hospital discharge data and randomly split into development (n = 87,266 [60%]) and validation (n = 57,647 [40%]) cohorts.Development of critical illness, defined as severe sepsis, delivery of mechanical ventilation, or death during hospitalization.Critical illness occurred during hospitalization in 5% of the development (n = 4835) and validation (n = 3121) cohorts. Multivariable predictors of critical illness included older age, lower systolic blood pressure, abnormal respiratory rate, lower Glasgow Coma Scale score, lower pulse oximetry, and nursing home residence during out-of-hospital care (P < .01 for all). When applying a summary critical illness prediction score to the validation cohort (range, 0-8), the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.78), with satisfactory calibration slope (1.0). Using a score threshold of 4 or higher, sensitivity was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.20-0.23), specificity was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.98-0.98), positive likelihood ratio was 9.8 (95% CI, 8.9-10.6), and negative likelihood ratio was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.79- 0.82). A threshold of 1 or greater for critical illness improved sensitivity (0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.98) but reduced specificity (0.17; 95% CI, 0.17-0.17).In a population-based cohort, the score on a prediction rule using out-of-hospital factors was significantly associated with the development of critical illness during hospitalization. This score requires external validation in an independent population.