Separate and unequal: clinics where minority and nonminority patients receive primary care.

Department of Medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, 2160 S First Avenue, Maywood, IL 60153, USA.
Archives of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 13.25). 03/2009; 169(3):243-50. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.559
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Few studies have examined the influence of physician workplace conditions on health care disparities. We compared 96 primary care clinics in New York, New York, and in the upper Midwest serving various proportions of minority patients to determine differences in workplace organizational characteristics.
Cross-sectional data are from surveys of 96 clinic managers, 388 primary care physicians, and 1701 of their adult patients with hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or congestive heart failure participating in the Minimizing Error, Maximizing Outcome (MEMO) study. Data from 27 clinics with at least 30% minority patients were contrasted with data from 69 clinics with less than 30% minority patients.
Compared with clinics serving less than 30% minority patients, clinics serving at least 30% minority patients have less access to medical supplies (2.7 vs 3.4, P < .001), referral specialists (3.0 vs 3.5, P < .005) on a scale of 1 (none) to 4 (great), and examination rooms per physician (2.2 vs 2.7, P =.002) . Their patients are more frequently depressed (22.8% vs 12.1%), are more often covered by Medicaid (30.2% vs 11.4%), and report lower health literacy (3.7 vs 4.4) on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high) (P < .001 for all). Physicians from clinics serving higher proportions of minority populations perceive their patients as frequently speaking little or no English (27.1% vs 3.4%, P =.004), having more chronic pain (24.1% vs 12.9%, P < .001) and substance abuse problems (15.1% vs 10.1%, P =.005), and being more medically complex (53.1% vs 39.9%) and psychosocially complex (44.9% vs 28.2%) (P < .001 for both). In regression analyses, clinics with at least 30% minority patients are more likely to have chaotic work environments (odds ratio, 4.0; P =.003) and to have fewer physicians reporting high work control (0.2; P =.003) or high job satisfaction (0.4; P =.01).
Clinics serving higher proportions of minority patients have more challenging workplace and organizational characteristics.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Shared decision making (SDM) is an interactive process between clinicians and patients in which both share information, deliberate together, and make clinical decisions. Clinics serving safety net patients face special challenges, including fewer resources and more challenging work environments. The use of SDM within safety net institutions has not been well studied. We recruited a convenience sample of 15 safety net primary care clinicians (13 physicians, 2 nurse practitioners). Each answered a 9-item SDM questionnaire and participated in a semistructured interview. From the transcribed interviews and questionnaire data, we identified themes and suggestions for introducing SDM into a safety net environment. Clinicians reported only partially fulfilling the central components of SDM (sharing information, deliberating, and decision making). Most clinicians expressed interest in SDM by stating that they "selected a treatment option together" with patients (8 of 15 in strong or complete agreement), but only a minority (3 of 15) "thoroughly weighed the different treatment options" together with patients. Clinicians attributed this gap to many barriers, including time pressure, overwhelming visit content, patient preferences, and lack of available resources. All clinicians believed that lack of time made it difficult to practice SDM. To increase use of SDM in the safety net, efficient SDM interventions designed for this environment, team care, and patient engagement in SDM will need further development. Future studies should focus on adapting SDM to safety net settings and determine whether SDM can reduce health care disparities.
    The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 03/2014; 27(2):292-294. DOI:10.3122/jabfm.2014.02.130245 · 1.85 Impact Factor
  • Primary Health Care Research & Development 07/2014; 15(3):227-30. DOI:10.1017/S1463423614000231
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To test the hypothesis that racial biases in opioid prescribing would be more likely under high levels of cognitive load, defined as the amount of mental activity imposed on working memory, which may come from environmental factors such as stressful conditions, chaotic workplace, staffing insufficiency, and competing demands, one's own psychological or physiological state, as well as from demands inherent in the task at hand. Two (patient race: White vs Black) by two (cognitive load: low vs high) between-subjects factorial design. Ninety-eight primary care physicians from the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. Web-based experimental study. Physicians were randomly assigned to read vignettes about either a Black or White patient, under low vs high cognitive load, and to indicate their likelihood of prescribing opioids. High cognitive load was induced by having physicians perform a concurrent task under time pressure. There was a three-way interaction between patient race, cognitive load, and physician gender on prescribing decisions (P = 0.034). Hypotheses were partially confirmed. Male physicians were less likely to prescribe opioids for Black than White patients under high cognitive load (12.5% vs 30.0%) and were more likely to prescribe opioids for Black than White patients under low cognitive load (30.8% vs 10.5%). By contrast, female physicians were more likely to prescribe opioids for Black than White patients in both conditions, with greater racial differences under high (39.1% vs 15.8%) vs low cognitive load (28.6% vs 21.7%). Physician gender affected the way in which patient race and cognitive load influenced decisions to prescribe opioids for chronic pain. Future research is needed to further explore the potential effects of physician gender on racial biases in pain treatment, and the effects of physician cognitive load on pain treatment.
    Pain Medicine 02/2014; DOI:10.1111/pme.12378 · 2.24 Impact Factor

Full-text (4 Sources)

Available from
May 21, 2014