Positive Deviance to Address Health Equity in Quality and Safety in Obstetrics.

Racial/ethnic disparities persist in obstetrical outcomes. In this paper, we ask how research in obstetrical quality can go beyond a purely quantitative approach to tackle the challenge of health inequity in quality and safety. This overview debriefs the use of positive deviance and mixed methods in others areas of medicine, describes the shortcomings of quantitative methods in obstetrics and presents qualitative studies carried out in obstetrics as well as the insights provided by this method. The article concludes by proposing positive deviance as a mixed methods approach to generate new knowledge for addressing racial and ethnic disparities in maternal outcomes.

Setting Boundaries: Public Views on Limiting Patient and Physician Autonomy in Health Care Decisions.

We obtained and qualitatively analyzed input from more than nine hundred citizens during seventy-six public deliberation sessions about patient and physician autonomy in decision making, setting health care boundaries, and the tensions among competing social values. Generally, participants resisted interference with the patient-physician relationship and believed strongly in the freedom of patient and physician to control individual medical decisions. However, during deliberation participants identified two situations where boundaries and regulations in health care were more acceptable: protecting people from harm and allocating limited resources. The core value of individual freedom was tempered in varying degrees by the values of concern for the greater good and fairness in allocating resources. Where tensions between values emerged, participants used different concepts-including accountability, transparency, trust, personal responsibility, and moral obligation-to navigate trade-offs. Fairly balancing the public's desire to protect individual freedom with their sense of responsibility for protecting the common good may be the key to developing acceptable, workable policies that promote evidence-based medical practice.

Characteristics of High Versus Low-Performing Hospitals for Very Preterm Infant Morbidity and Mortality.

Objective: To ascertain organizational attributes, policies, and practices that differentiate hospitals with high versus low risk-adjusted rates of very preterm neonatal morbidity and mortality (NMM). Methods: Using a positive deviance research framework, we conducted qualitative interviews of hospital leadership and frontline clinicians from September-October 2018 in 4 high-performing and 4 low-performing hospitals in New York City, based on NMM measured in previous research. Key interview topics included NICU physician and nurse staffing, professional development, standardization of care, quality measurement and improvement, and efforts to measure and report on racial/ethnic disparities in care and outcomes for very preterm infants. Interviews were audiotaped, professionally transcribed, and coded using NVivo software. In qualitative content analysis, researchers blinded to hospital performance identified emergent themes, highlighted illustrative quotes, and drew qualitative comparisons between hospital clusters. Results: The following features distinguished high-performing facilities: 1) stronger commitment from hospital leadership to diversity, quality, and equity; 2) better access to specialist physicians and experienced nursing staff; 3) inclusion of nurses in developing clinical policies and protocols, and 4) acknowledgement of the influence of racism and bias in healthcare on racial-ethnic disparities. In both clusters, areas for improvement included comprehensive family engagement strategies, care standardization, and reporting of quality data by patient sociodemographic characteristics. Conclusions and relevance: Our findings suggest specific organizational and cultural characteristics, from hospital leadership and clinician perspectives, that may yield better patient outcomes, and demonstrate the utility of a positive deviance framework to center equity in quality initiatives for high-risk infant care.

Distinguishing High-Performing From Low-Performing Hospitals for Severe Maternal Morbidity: A Focus on Quality and Equity.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate which organizational factors, policies, and practices distinguish hospitals with high compared with low risk-adjusted rates of severe maternal morbidity (SMM). METHODS: Using a positive deviance approach, this qualitative study included 50 semistructured interviews with health care professionals (obstetrics and gynecology chairs, labor and delivery medical directors, nurse managers, frontline nurses, physicians or nurses responsible for quality and safety, and chief medical officers) in four low-performing and four high-performing hospitals in New York City. Hospital performance was based on risk-adjusted morbidity metrics from previous research. Major topics explored were structural characteristics (eg, staffing, credentialing), organizational characteristics (eg, culture, leadership, communication, use of data), labor and delivery practices (eg, use of standardized, evidence-based practices, teamwork), and racial and ethnic disparities in SMM. All interviews were audiotaped, professionally transcribed, and coded using NVivo software. Researchers blinded to group assignment conducted qualitative content analysis. Researchers wrote analytic memos to identify key themes and patterns emerging from the interviews, highlight illustrative quotes, and draw qualitative comparisons between the two hospital clusters with different (but unrevealed) performance levels. RESULTS: Six themes distinguished high-performing from low-performing hospitals. High-performing hospitals were more likely to have: 1) senior leadership involved in day-to-day quality activities and dedicated to quality improvement, 2) a strong focus on standards and standardized care, 3) strong nurse-physician communication and teamwork, 4) adequate physician and nurse staffing and supervision, 5) sharing of performance data with nurses and other frontline clinicians, and 6) explicit awareness that racial and ethnic disparities exist and that racism and bias in the hospital can lead to differential treatment. CONCLUSION: Organizational factors, policies, and practices at multiple levels distinguish high-performing from low-performing hospitals for SMM. Findings illustrate the potential for targeted quality initiatives to improve maternal health and reduce obstetric disparities arising from delivery in low-performing hospitals.

Building Academic Geriatric Nursing Capacity: results after the first 10 years and implications for the future.

In 2000, the John A. Hartford Foundation launched a multi-million dollar investment in Building Academic Geriatric Nursing Capacity (BAGNC) at the American Academy of Nursing (AAN). After a decade of focused support to increase scholarship, research, leadership, and institutional collaboration, is there evidence this program is successful in achieving its goals? Equally important, as the need for quality geriatric nursing care increases with the expanding aging population and associated complex health conditions, how does the experience and outcomes of this program inform nursing's future? To address both questions, the authors first provide an overview of geriatric nursing prior to and up to the time the BAGNC program began, then review results of an external evaluation of the BAGNC program, and finally propose goals and strategies for the next 20 years of academic geriatric nursing.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Severe Maternal Morbidity: A Qualitative Study of Women's Experiences of Peripartum Care.

INTRODUCTION: Racial and ethnic disparities in rates of maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States are striking and persistent. Despite evidence that variation in the quality of care contributes substantially to these disparities, we do not sufficiently understand how experiences of perinatal care differ by race and ethnicity among women with severe maternal morbidity. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with women who experienced a severe maternal morbidity event in a New York City hospital during their most recent pregnancy (n = 20). We organized three focus groups by self-identified race/ethnicity ([1] Black, [2] Latina, and [3] White or Asian) to detect any within- and between-group differences. Discussions were audiotaped and transcribed. The research team coded the transcripts and used content analysis to identify key themes and to compare findings across racial and ethnic groups. RESULTS: Participants reported distressing experiences and lasting emotional consequences after having a severe childbirth complication. Many women appreciated the life-saving care they received. However, poor continuity of care, communication gaps, and a perceived lack of attentiveness to participants' physical and emotional needs led to substantial concern and disappointment in care. Black and Latina women in particular emphasized these themes. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights missed opportunities for improved clinician communication and continuity of care to address emotional trauma when severe obstetric complications occur, particularly for Black and Latina women. Enhancing communication to ensure that women feel heard and informed throughout the birth process and addressing implicit bias, as a part of the more systemic issue of institutionalized racism, could both decrease disparities in obstetric care quality and improve the patient experience for women of all races and ethnicities.

Perinatal care experiences among racially and ethnically diverse mothers whose infants required a NICU stay.

OBJECTIVE: To learn how diverse mothers whose babies required a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) stay evaluate their obstetric and neonatal care. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted three focus groups stratified by race/ethnicity (Black, Latina, White, and Asian women, n = 20) who delivered infants at <32 weeks gestation or <1500 g with a NICU stay. We asked women to assess perinatal care and applied classic qualitative analysis techniques to identify themes and make comparisons across groups. RESULTS: Predominant themes were similar across groups, including thoroughness and consistency of clinician communication, provider attentiveness, and barriers to closeness with infants. Care experiences were largely positive, but some suggested poorer communication and responsiveness toward Black and Latina mothers. CONCLUSION: Feeling consulted and included in infant care is critical for mothers of high-risk neonates. Further in-depth research is needed to remediate differences in hospital culture and quality that contribute to disparities in neonatal care and outcomes.

Navigating poorly charted territory: patient dilemmas in health care "nonsystems".

American health care is complex, fragmented, and arcane rather than being patient centered. Many patients have considerable difficulty navigating this system. As a result, care is less timely, safe, effective, and efficient. Since navigation problems are more likely for those who are sicker and less educated, they contribute to inequity. Early solutions proposed for this problem focused on the use of yet another specialized professional, the "navigator," to help individuals find their way through the system so they get the care they need. The author defines the patient navigation problem and its probable consequences and argues that research and action are needed to (a) document the problem empirically, (b) identify underlying organizational structures and behaviors that can make navigation easy or difficult, and (c) assess whether and how policies, regulations, and improvement strategies can influence these structures and behaviors.

Quality improvement in small office settings: an examination of successful practices.

BACKGROUND: Physicians in small to moderate primary care practices in the United States (U.S.) (<25 physicians) face unique challenges in implementing quality improvement (QI) initiatives, including limited resources, small staffs, and inadequate information technology systems 23,36. This qualitative study sought to identify and understand the characteristics and organizational cultures of physicians working in smaller practices who are actively engaged in measurement and quality improvement initiatives. METHODS: We undertook a qualitative study, based on semi-structured, open-ended interviews conducted with practices (N = 39) that used performance data to drive quality improvement activities. RESULTS: Physicians indicated that benefits to performing measurement and QI included greater practice efficiency, patient and staff retention, and higher staff and clinician satisfaction with practice. Internal facilitators included the designation of a practice champion, cooperation of other physicians and staff, and the involvement of practice leaders. Time constraints, cost of activities, problems with information management and or technology, lack of motivated staff, and a lack of financial incentives were commonly reported as barriers. CONCLUSION: These findings shed light on how physicians engage in quality improvement activities, and may help raise awareness of and aid in the implementation of future initiatives in small practices more generally.

Addressing the need for public reporting of comparative hospice quality: a focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Standardized measures are available to assess hospice quality across multiple domains, but no information on hospice quality is available to the public. A study was conducted in 2006 to explore the public's knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes about hospice care and their responses to the idea of a public report on comparative hospice quality. METHODS: Six focus groups were conducted, two with individuals with direct hospice care experience and four with people without experience. Focus groups were videotaped, transcribed, and analyzed for themes and patterns of convergence and divergence. RESULTS: Focus group participants without hospice experience knew of hospice but had little accurate information about hospices services, who could benefit, or how it is financed. Even some with hospice experience were unaware of services such as bereavement support. Participants saw hospice as appropriate only when the family could no longer provide care. They wanted a public report to include information about hospice, help in comparing hospice to other kinds of end-of-life care, details on accreditation, staff and services of individual hospices, quality comparisons, and decision support. Hospice was viewed as providing a broad range of services to the family as well as the patient. DISCUSSION: This research will provide guidance for the development of an evidence-based model report on hospice quality that includes substantial educational material. It also supports the selection of measures for such a report that would resonate with the public, which makes the use of a comparative quality report more likely. The next step in this research is to develop and formatively test such a report, so that it can be pilot tested with willing hospices in a community offering a choice of providers. Considerable additional work is needed to ensure that hospice becomes more understandable and transparent to the public.

Using the Taxonomy and the Metrics: What to Study When and Why Comment on "Metrics and Evaluation Tools for Patient Engagement in Healthcare Organization- and System-Level Decision-Making: A Systematic Review".

Dukhanin and colleagues' taxonomy of metrics for patient engagement at the organizational and system levels has great potential for supporting more careful and useful evaluations of this ever-growing phenomenon. This commentary highlights the central importance to the taxonomy of metrics assessing the extent of meaningful participation in decision-making by patients, consumers and community members; discusses how the purpose of an evaluation and the organizational relationships among key evaluation stakeholders is likely to influence the choice of metrics in important ways; and suggests a recasting of the metrics in the form of a logic model that supports the selection of metrics that are appropriate for a program given its stage of development and the purposes of the study.

An informed public's views on reducing antibiotic overuse.

OBJECTIVE: To understand public attitudes about and recommendations to address antibiotic overuse by employing public deliberation (a method for eliciting informed input on value-laden issues). DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Participants in 24 Community Deliberation groups (CD; n = 263), four Citizens' Panel groups (CP; n = 96), and a control group (n = 348). Data were collected in 2012 in four U.S. STUDY DESIGN: Using mixed methods, we analyzed quantitative and qualitative data from a randomized control trial. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Using pre/postdeliberation surveys, we compared CD and CP participant attitude changes regarding antibiotic use to the control group. We analyzed deliberation transcripts using qualitative techniques to provide context for survey results. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Compared to control group participants, CD and CP participants had a larger postdeliberation shift in attitudes toward support of government limits on when doctors can prescribe antibiotics. Participants described unawareness about antibiotic overuse and called for education. When discussing prescription limits, participants debated tensions between preserving patient/doctor autonomy and protecting society from antibiotic-related harms. Participants saw patient, physician, and government roles in antibiotic stewardship policies/programs. CONCLUSION: When informed about individual and social consequences of antibiotic overuse, patients may be more receptive to antibiotic prescription limits. Community-physician-government partnerships are needed to create solutions.

Venous thromboembolism, thrombophilia, antithrombotic therapy, and pregnancy: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition).

This article discusses the management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and thrombophilia, as well as the use of antithrombotic agents, during pregnancy and is part of the American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that benefits do, or do not, outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 recommendations are weaker and imply that the magnitude of the benefits and risks, burden, and costs are less certain. Support for recommendations may come from high-quality, moderate-quality or low-quality studies; labeled, respectively, A, B, and C. Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: for pregnant women, in general, we recommend that vitamin K antagonists should be substituted with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) [Grade 1A], except perhaps in women with mechanical heart valves. For pregnant patients, we suggest LMWH over UFH for the prevention and treatment of VTE (Grade 2C). For pregnant women with acute VTE, we recommend that subcutaneous LMWH or UFH should be continued throughout pregnancy (Grade 1B) and suggest that anticoagulants should be continued for at least 6 weeks postpartum (for a total minimum duration of therapy of 6 months) [Grade 2C]. For pregnant patients with a single prior episode of VTE associated with a transient risk factor that is no longer present and no thrombophilia, we recommend clinical surveillance antepartum and anticoagulant prophylaxis postpartum (Grade 1C). For other pregnant women with a history of a single prior episode of VTE who are not receiving long-term anticoagulant therapy, we recommend one of the following, rather than routine care or full-dose anticoagulation: antepartum prophylactic LMWH/UFH or intermediate-dose LMWH/UFH or clinical surveillance throughout pregnancy plus postpartum anticoagulants (Grade 1C). For such patients with a higher risk thrombophilia, in addition to postpartum prophylaxis, we suggest antepartum prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH or prophylactic or intermediate-dose UFH, rather than clinical surveillance (Grade 2C). We suggest that pregnant women with multiple episodes of VTE who are not receiving long-term anticoagulants receive antepartum prophylactic, intermediate-dose, or adjusted-dose LMWH or intermediate or adjusted-dose UFH, followed by postpartum anticoagulants (Grade 2C). For those pregnant women with prior VTE who are receiving long-term anticoagulants, we recommend LMWH or UFH throughout pregnancy (either adjusted-dose LMWH or UFH, 75% of adjusted-dose LMWH, or intermediate-dose LMWH) followed by resumption of long-term anticoagulants postpartum (Grade 1C). We suggest both antepartum and postpartum prophylaxis for pregnant women with no prior history of VTE but antithrombin deficiency (Grade 2C). For all other pregnant women with thrombophilia but no prior VTE, we suggest antepartum clinical surveillance or prophylactic LMWH or UFH, plus postpartum anticoagulants, rather than routine care (Grade 2C). For women with recurrent early pregnancy loss or unexplained late pregnancy loss, we recommend screening for antiphospholipid antibodies (APLAs) [Grade 1A]. For women with these pregnancy complications who test positive for APLAs and have no history of venous or arterial thrombosis, we recommend antepartum administration of prophylactic or intermediate-dose UFH or prophylactic LMWH combined with aspirin (Grade 1B). We recommend that the decision about anticoagulant management during pregnancy for pregnant women with mechanical heart valves include an assessment of additional risk factors for thromboembolism including valve type, position, and history of thromboembolism (Grade 1C). While patient values and preferences are important for all decisions regarding antithrombotic therapy in pregnancy, this is particularly so for women with mechanical heart valves. For these women, we recommend either adjusted-dose bid LMWH throughout pregnancy (Grade 1C), adjusted-dose UFH throughout pregnancy (Grade 1C), or one of these two regimens until the thirteenth week with warfarin substitution until close to delivery before restarting LMWH or UFH) [Grade 1C]. However, if a pregnant woman with a mechanical heart valve is judged to be at very high risk of thromboembolism and there are concerns about the efficacy and safety of LMWH or UFH as dosed above, we suggest vitamin K antagonists throughout pregnancy with replacement by UFH or LMWH close to delivery, after a thorough discussion of the potential risks and benefits of this approach (Grade 2C).

Physicians' views on public reporting of hospital quality data.

This article describes physicians' responses to patient questions and physicians' views about public reports on hospital quality. Interviews with 56 office-based physicians in seven states/regions used hypothetical scenarios of patients questioning referrals based on public reports of hospital quality. Responses were analyzed using an iterative coding process to develop categories and themes from data. Four themes describe physicians' responses to patients: (a) rely on existing physician-patient relationships, (b) acknowledge and consider patient perspectives, (c) take actions to follow up on patient concerns, and (d) provide patients' perspectives on quality reports. Three themes summarize responses to hospital quality reports: perceived lack of methodological rigor, content considerations in reports, and attitudes/experience regarding reports. Findings suggest that physicians take seriously patients' questions about hospital-quality reports and consider changing referral recommendations based on their concerns and/or preferences. Results underscore the importance of efforts by report developers and physician outreach/education to address physicians' methodological concerns.

Does providing cost-effectiveness information change coverage priorities for citizens acting as social decision makers?

Escalating costs have generated increasing calls for Medicare to use cost-effectiveness as one criterion in determining coverage decisions. Decision-makers in U.S. health care have largely assumed that the public will reject any explicit consideration of cost in coverage policy, but there has been little formal testing of that hypothesis. We tested this assumption in a pilot study in which groups of citizens learned about and discussed health care costs, CEA methods, and common ethical issues embedded in CEA. Participants received information about 14 conditions and treatments and were asked to prioritize them for funding by Medicare under assumptions of constrained resources. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, this diverse sample understood CEA, were largely open to its use, and changed their own funding priorities when given cost-effectiveness ratio information.

Using public reports of patient satisfaction for hospital quality improvement.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of statewide public reporting of hospital patient satisfaction on hospital quality improvement (QI), using Rhode Island (RI) as a case example. DATA SOURCE: Primary data collected through semi-structured interviews between September 2002 and January 2003. STUDY DESIGN: The design is a retrospective study of hospital executives at all 11 general and two specialty hospitals in RI. Respondents were asked about hospital QI activities at several points throughout the public reporting process, as well as about hospital structure and processes to accomplish QI. Qualitative analysis of the interview data proceeded through an iterative process to identify themes and categories in the data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Data from the standardized statewide patient satisfaction survey process were used by hospitals to identify and target new QI initiatives, evaluate performance, and monitor progress. While all hospitals fully participated in the public reporting process, they varied in the stage of development of their QI activities and adoption of the statewide standardized survey for ongoing monitoring of their QI programs. Most hospitals placed responsibility for QI within each department, with results reported to top management, who were perceived as giving strong support for QI. The external environment facilitated QI efforts. CONCLUSION: Public reporting of comparative data on patient views can enhance and reinforce QI efforts in hospitals. The participation of key stakeholders facilitated successful implementation of statewide public reporting. This experience in RI offers lessons for other states or regions as they move to public reporting of hospital quality data.

Understanding Consumer Perceptions and Awareness of Hospital-Based Maternity Care Quality Measures.

OBJECTIVE: To explore factors that may influence use of comparative public reports for hospital maternity care. DATA SOURCES: Four focus groups conducted in 2013 with 41 women and preintervention survey data collected in 2014 to 2015 from 245 pregnant women in North Carolina. STUDY DESIGN: As part of a larger randomized controlled trial, we conducted qualitative formative research to develop an intervention that will be evaluated through pre- and postintervention surveys. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: Analysis of focus group transcripts examined participants' perceptions of high-quality maternity care and the importance of different quality measures. Quantitative analysis included descriptive results of the preintervention survey and subgroup analyses to examine the impact of race, education, and being a first-time mom on outcomes. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: When describing high-quality maternity care, participants focused on interactions with providers, including respect for preferences and communication. The importance of quality measures was influenced by the extent to which they focused on babies' health, were perceived as the hospital's responsibility, and were perceived as representing "standard care." At baseline, 28 percent of survey respondents had used quality information to choose a hospital. Survey respondents were more aware of some quality measures (e.g., breastfeeding support) than others (e.g., episiotomy rates). CONCLUSIONS: Public reporting efforts could help increase relevance of maternity care quality measures by creating measures that reflect women's concerns, clearly explaining the hospital's role in supporting quality care, and showing how available quality measures can inform decisions about childbirth.

Understanding An Informed Public's Views On The Role Of Evidence In Making Health Care Decisions.

Policy makers and practitioners increasingly believe that medical evidence plays a critical role in improving care and health outcomes and lowering costs. However, public understanding of the role of evidence-based care may be different. Public deliberation is a process that convenes diverse citizens and has them learn about and consider ethical or values-based dilemmas and weigh alternative views. The Community Forum Deliberative Methods Demonstration project, sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, obtained informed public views on the role of evidence in health care decisions through seventy-six deliberative groups involving 907 people overall, in the period August-November 2012. Although participants perceived evidence as being essential to high-quality care, they also believed that personal choice or clinical judgment could trump evidence. They viewed doctors as central figures in discussing evidence with patients and key arbiters of whether to follow evidence in individual cases. They found evidence of harm to individuals or the community to be more compelling than evidence of effectiveness. These findings indicate that increased public understanding of evidence can play an important role in advancing evidence-based care by helping create policies that better reflect the needs and values of the public.

What do consumers want to know about the quality of care in hospitals?

OBJECTIVE: To guide the development of the Consumer Assessments of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Hospital Survey by identifying which domains of hospital quality included in a survey of recent hospital patients, and which survey items within those domains, would be of greatest interest to consumers and patients. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Primary data were collected in four cities (Baltimore, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Orlando), from a demographically varied mix of people of whom most, but not all, had recently been hospitalized or had a close loved one hospitalized. STUDY DESIGN/DATA COLLECTION METHOD: A total of 16 focus groups were held in these four cities. Groups were structured to be homogeneous with respect to type of health care coverage (Medicare, non-Medicare), and type of recent hospital experience (urgent admission, elective admission, maternity admission, no admission). They were heterogeneous with respect to race/ethnicity, gender, and educational attainment. In addition to moderated discussions, focus group participants completed a pregroup questionnaire and various paper and pencil exercises during the groups. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A wide range of features were identified by participants as being relevant to hospital quality. Many were consonant with domains and items in the CAHPS Hospital Survey; however, some addressed structural features of hospitals and hospital outcomes that are not best derived from a patient experience survey. When shown the domains and items being considered for inclusion in the CAHPS Hospital Survey, participants were most interested in items relating to doctor communication with patients, nurse and hospital staff communication with patients, responsiveness to patient needs, and cleanliness of the hospital room and bathroom. Findings were quite consistent across groups regardless of location and participant characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers and patients have a high degree of interest in hospital quality and found a very high proportion of the items being considered for the CAHPS Hospital Survey to be so important they would consider changing hospitals in response to information about them. Hospital choice may well be constrained for patients, but publicly reported information from a patient perspective can also be used to support patient discussions with facilities and physicians about how to ensure patients have the best hospital experience possible.

Deliberation: obtaining informed input from a diverse public.

OBJECTIVES: Health care decision makers require public input to incorporate diverse values into programs and policies. Deliberation, one method for obtaining input, seeks to apply inclusive principles wherein diverse groups provide perspectives to inform decisions. We evaluate whether participants of different racial, ethnic, and educational backgrounds show differences in the effect of deliberation and the value placed on deliberation participation. METHODS: We surveyed 907 participants before and after deliberation. Regression models examined associations between demographics and change in knowledge and attitudes, and perceived impact. RESULTS: Changes in knowledge about using medical evidence in decision-making were not associated with race, ethnicity, or education. Changes in attitudes were not associated with these characteristics with one exception. African American, Hispanic, and participants with lower educational attainment reported more perceived impact. CONCLUSION: Similar results across demographic groups suggest deliberation's promise for obtaining input from a diverse public to inform health programs and policies.