A Roadmap and Best Practices for Organizations to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Finding Answers: Disparities Research for Change National Program Office, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.42). 08/2012; 27(8):992-1000. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-012-2082-9
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Over the past decade, researchers have shifted their focus from documenting health care disparities to identifying solutions to close the gap in care. Finding Answers: Disparities Research for Change, a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, is charged with identifying promising interventions to reduce disparities. Based on our work conducting systematic reviews of the literature, evaluating promising practices, and providing technical assistance to health care organizations, we present a roadmap for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in care. The roadmap outlines a dynamic process in which individual interventions are just one part. It highlights that organizations and providers need to take responsibility for reducing disparities, establish a general infrastructure and culture to improve quality, and integrate targeted disparities interventions into quality improvement efforts. Additionally, we summarize the major lessons learned through the Finding Answers program. We share best practices for implementing disparities interventions and synthesize cross-cutting themes from 12 systematic reviews of the literature. Our research shows that promising interventions frequently are culturally tailored to meet patients' needs, employ multidisciplinary teams of care providers, and target multiple leverage points along a patient's pathway of care. Health education that uses interactive techniques to deliver skills training appears to be more effective than traditional didactic approaches. Furthermore, patient navigation and engaging family and community members in the health care process may improve outcomes for minority patients. We anticipate that the roadmap and best practices will be useful for organizations, policymakers, and researchers striving to provide high-quality equitable care.


Available from: Scott C Cook, Sep 16, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:Diabetes quality of care standards promote uniform goals and are used routinely for performance measurement and reimbursement. Diabetes health disparities have been characterized using these universal goals. However, guidelines emphasize individualized goals.Objectives:To assess diabetes care disparities using individualized goals to (1) determine their racial/ethnic distribution and (2) compare disparities using individualized versus uniform goals.Research Design, Subjects, and Measures:A nationally representative sample of non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, and Hispanic adults with self-reported diabetes aged 20 years or more in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2007-2010. Individualized glycemic goals (A1C<6.5%, <7.0%, or <8.0%) assigned based on age, duration, complications, and comorbidity, and cholesterol goals [low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) <70 or <100 mg/dL] assigned based on cardiovascular history.Results:More Hispanics were recommended an individualized A1C<7.0% compared with whites (54% vs. 42%, P=0.008). Fewer blacks and Hispanics were recommended an individualized LDL<70 mg/dL than whites (21% and 19% vs. 28%, P=0.02 and 0.001). Fewer Hispanics had adequate individualized A1C control (56% vs. 68%, P<0.001), and fewer blacks and Hispanics had adequate individualized LDL control (31% and 36% vs. 51%, P0.001 and P=0.004). A uniform A1C<7% goal did not reveal disparities in glycemic control; individualized A1C and LDL, blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg, and nonsmoking was achieved by few adults (18%), and fewer blacks and Hispanics than whites (6% and 11% vs. 22%, P<0.001 and P=0.005).Conclusions:Individualized goals for diabetes care may unearth greater racial/ethnic disparities in clinical performance compared with uniform goals. Diabetes performance measures should include individualized goals to prevent worsening disparities in diabetes outcomes.
    Medical Care 11/2014; 53(1). DOI:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000255 · 2.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess a quality improvement disparity reduction intervention and its sustainability. Electronic health records and Quality Index database of Clalit Health Services in Israel (2008-2012). Interrupted time-series with pre-, during, and postintervention disparities measurement between 55 target clinics (serving approximately 400,000 mostly low socioeconomic, minority populations) and all other (126) clinics. Data on a Quality Indicator Disparity Scale (QUIDS-7) of 7 indicators, and on a 61-indicator scale (QUIDS-61). The gap between intervention and nonintervention clinics for QUIDS-7 decreased by 66.7 percent and by 70.4 percent for QUIDS-61. Disparity reduction continued (18.2 percent) during the follow-up period. Quality improvement can achieve significant reduction in disparities in a wide range of clinical domains, which can be sustained over time. © Health Research and Educational Trust.
    Health Services Research 03/2015; DOI:10.1111/1475-6773.12300 · 2.49 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Two studies in this issue of the Journal indicate that differences in how we deliver care to patients in various racial or ethnic groups have narrowed nationally, but health outcomes remain worse for blacks than for whites. Trivedi et al.(1) studied hospitalizations of patients for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia from 2005 through 2010. They found that racial or ethnic differences decreased for processes of care (i.e., what clinicians do for patients), such as evidence-based prescribing of medications and the administration of flu shots. In contrast, Ayanian et al.(2) discovered that black enrollees in Medicare Advantage health plans . . .
    New England Journal of Medicine 12/2014; 371(24):2331-2332. DOI:10.1056/NEJMe1412264 · 54.42 Impact Factor