Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in estimates of AHRQ patient safety indicators.
ABSTRACT Patient safety events that result from the happenstance of mistakes and errors should not occur systematically across racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic subgroups.
To determine whether racial and ethnic differences in patient safety events disappear when income (a proxy for socioeconomic status) is taken into account.
This study analyzes administrative data from community hospitals in 16 states with reliable race/ethnicity measures in the 2000 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), using the publicly available AHRQ patient safety indicators (PSIs).
Different indicators show different results for different racial/ethnic subgroups. Many events with higher rates for non-Hispanic blacks (compared with non-Hispanic whites) remain higher when income is taken into account, although such differences for Hispanics or Asian/Pacific Islanders (APIs) tend to disappear. Many events with lower rates for Hispanics and APIs remain lower than whites when income is taken into account, but for blacks, they disappear.
The higher rates for minorities that reflect the way health care is delivered raise troubling questions about potential racial/ethnic bias and discrimination in the US health care system, problems with cultural sensitivity and effective communication, and access to high-quality health care providers.
The AHRQ PSIs are a broad screen for potential safety events that point to needed improvement in the quality of care for specific populations.
SourceAvailable from: Andrine M. Lemieux[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background Non-malignant chronic pain (NMCP) is one of the most common reasons for primary care visits. Pain management health care disparities have been documented in relation to patient gender, race, and socioeconomic status. Although not studied in relation to chronic pain management, studies have found that living in a rural community in the US is associated with health care disparities. Rurality as a social determinant of health may influence opioid prescribing. We examined rural and non-rural differences in opioid prescribing patterns for NMCP management, hypothesizing that distinct from education, income, racial or gender differences, rural residency is a significant and independent factor in opioid prescribing patterns.Methods2010 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) data were examined using bivariate and multivariate techniques. NAMCS data are collected using a multi-stage sampling strategy. For the multivariate analysis performed the SPSS complex samples algorithm for logistic regression was used.ResultsIn 2010 an estimated 9,325,603 US adults (weighted from a sample of 2745) seen in primary care clinics had a diagnosis of NMCP; 36.4% were prescribed an opioid. For US adults with a NMCP diagnosis bivariate analysis revealed rural residents had higher odds of having an opioid prescription than similar non-rural adults (OR¿=¿1.515, 95% CI 1.513-1.518). Complex samples logistic regression analysis confirmed the importance of rurality and yielded that US adults with NMCP who were prescribed an opioid had higher odds of: being non-Caucasian (AOR =2.459, 95% CI 1.194-5.066), and living in a rural area (AOR =2.935, 95% CI 1.416-6.083).Conclusions Our results clearly indicated that rurality is an important factor in opioid prescribing patterns that cannot be ignored and bears further investigation. Further research on the growing concern about the over-prescribing of opioids in the US should now include rurality as a variable in data generation and analysis. Future research should also attempt to document the ecological, sociological and political factors impacting opioid prescribing and care in rural communities. Prescribers and health care policy makers need to critically evaluate the implications of our findings and their relationship to patient needs, best practices in a rural setting, and the overall consequences of increased opioid prescribing on rural communities.BMC Health Services Research 11/2014; 14(1):563. DOI:10.1186/s12913-014-0563-8 · 1.66 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We analysed potential differences in incidence, type, nature, impact and preventability of adverse events (AEs) during hospitalisation between ethnic Dutch and ethnic minority patients, and the role of patient-related determinants. We hypothesised an increased AE incidence for ethnic minority patients. We conducted a prospective cohort study in four urban hospitals. 763 Dutch patients and 576 ethnic minority patients aged between 45 and 75, admitted for at least one night, were included in the study. All patients completed a questionnaire on patient-related determinants (eg, language proficiency). Incidence, type (eg, diagnostic AEs), impact and nature of AEs were assessed with a two-stage medical record review. Logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for patient and admission characteristics, and to investigate the contribution of patient-related determinants to AE risk. There was no significant difference in the incidence of AEs: 11% (95% CI 9% to 14%) in Dutch patients and 10% (95% CI 7% to 12%) in ethnic minority patients. Also, there was no significant difference in the incidence of preventable AEs: 3% (95% CI 1% to 4%) in Dutch patients and 1% (95% CI 0% to 2%) in ethnic minority patients. Low language proficiency, inadequate health literacy and low educational level did not increase the risk of an AE. Compared with Dutch patients, ethnic minority patients were not at increased risk of AEs while receiving care in Dutch hospitals. Healthcare providers seem to have responded effectively to specific patient care needs, but we do not know whether this occurred in an ad hoc or in a systematic way. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.BMJ Open 12/2014; 4(12):e005527. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005527 · 2.06 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The current study describes the development of a preliminary set of quality indicators for public Greek National Health System (GNHS) hospitals, which were used in the "Health Monitoring Indicators System: Health Map" (Ygeionomikos Chartis) project, with the purpose that these quality indicators would assess the quality of all the aspects relevant to public hospital healthcare workforce and services provided. A literature review was conducted in the MEDLINE database to identify articles referring to international and national hospital quality assessment projects, together with an online search for relevant projects. Studies were included if they were published in English, from 1980 to 2010. A consensus panel took place afterwards with 40 experts in the field and tele-voting procedure. Twenty relevant projects and their 1698 indicators were selected through the literature search, and after the consensus panel process, a list of 67 indicators were selected to be implemented for the assessment of the public hospitals categorized under six distinct dimensions: Quality, Responsiveness, Efficiency, Utilization, Timeliness, and Resources and Capacity. Data gathered and analyzed in this manner provided a novel evaluation and monitoring system for Greece, which can assist decision-makers, healthcare professionals, and patients in Greece to retrieve relevant information, with the long-term goal to improve quality in care in the GNHS hospital sector. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.International Journal of Health Planning and Management 07/2014; 29(3). DOI:10.1002/hpm.2237 · 0.97 Impact Factor