Identifying Population-Level and Within-Hospital Disparities in Surgical Care.

INTRODUCTION: The lack of consensus on equity measurement and its incorporation into quality-assessment programs at the hospital and system levels may be a barrier to addressing disparities in surgical care. This study aimed to identify population-level and within-hospital differences in the quality of surgical care provision. METHODS: The analysis included 657 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program participating hospitals with over 4 million patients (2014-2018). Multi-level random slope, random intercept modeling was used to examine for population-level and in-hospital disparities. Disparities in surgical care by Area Deprivation Index (ADI), race, and ethnicity were analyzed for five measures: all-case inpatient mortality, all-case urgent readmission, all-case postoperative surgical site infection, colectomy mortality, and spine surgery complications. RESULTS: Population-level disparities were identified across all measures by ADI, two measures for Black race (all-case readmissions and spine surgery complications), and none for Hispanic ethnicity. Disparities remained significant in the adjusted models. Prior to risk-adjustment, in all measures examined, within-hospital disparities were detected in: 25.8-99.8% of hospitals for ADI, 0-6.1% of hospitals for Black race, and 0-0.8% of hospitals for Hispanic ethnicity. Following risk-adjustment, in all measures examined, fewer than 1.1% of hospitals demonstrated disparities by ADI, race, or ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Following risk adjustment, very few hospitals demonstrated significant disparities in care. Disparities were more frequently detected by ADI than by race and ethnicity. The lack of substantial in-hospital disparities may be due to the use of postoperative metrics, small sample sizes, the risk adjustment methodology, and healthcare segregation. Further work should examine surgical access and healthcare segregation.

The role of funded partnerships in working towards decreasing COVID-19 vaccination disparities, United States, March 2021-December 2022.

During the COVID-19 vaccination rollout from March 2021- December 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded 110 primary and 1051 subrecipient partners at the national, state, local, and community-based level to improve COVID-19 vaccination access, confidence, demand, delivery, and equity in the United States. The partners implemented evidence-based strategies among racial and ethnic minority populations, rural populations, older adults, people with disabilities, people with chronic illness, people experiencing homelessness, and other groups disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. CDC also expanded existing partnerships with healthcare professional societies and other core public health partners, as well as developed innovative partnerships with organizations new to vaccination, including museums and libraries. Partners brought COVID-19 vaccine education into farm fields, local fairs, churches, community centers, barber and beauty shops, and, when possible, partnered with local healthcare providers to administer COVID-19 vaccines. Inclusive, hyper-localized outreach through partnerships with community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, vaccination providers, and local health departments was critical to increasing COVID-19 vaccine access and building a broad network of trusted messengers that promoted vaccine confidence. Data from monthly and quarterly REDCap reports and monthly partner calls showed that through these partnerships, more than 295,000 community-level spokespersons were trained as trusted messengers and more than 2.1 million COVID-19 vaccinations were administered at new or existing vaccination sites. More than 535,035 healthcare personnel were reached through outreach strategies. Quality improvement interventions were implemented in healthcare systems, long-term care settings, and community health centers resulting in changes to the clinical workflow to incorporate COVID-19 vaccine assessments, recommendations, and administration or referrals into routine office visits. Funded partners' activities improved COVID-19 vaccine access and addressed community concerns among racial and ethnic minority groups, as well as among people with barriers to vaccination due to chronic illness or disability, older age, lower income, or other factors.

Promoting Equity In Clinical Decision Making: Dismantling Race-Based Medicine.

As the use of artificial intelligence has spread rapidly throughout the US health care system, concerns have been raised about racial and ethnic biases built into the algorithms that often guide clinical decision making. Race-based medicine, which relies on algorithms that use race as a proxy for biological differences, has led to treatment patterns that are inappropriate, unjust, and harmful to minoritized racial and ethnic groups. These patterns have contributed to persistent disparities in health and health care. To reduce these disparities, we recommend a race-aware approach to clinical decision support that considers social and environmental factors such as structural racism and social determinants of health. Recent policy changes in medical specialty societies and innovations in algorithm development represent progress on the path to dismantling race-based medicine. Success will require continued commitment and sustained efforts among stakeholders in the health care, research, and technology sectors. Increasing the diversity of clinical trial populations, broadening the focus of precision medicine, improving education about the complex factors shaping health outcomes, and developing new guidelines and policies to enable culturally responsive care are important next steps.

Disparity-Sensitive Measures in Surgical Care: A Delphi Panel Consensus.

BACKGROUND: In the US, disparities in surgical care impede the delivery of uniformly high-quality care to all patients. There is a lack of disparity-sensitive measures related to surgical care. The American College of Surgeons Metrics for Equitable Access and Care in Surgery group, through research and expert consensus, aimed to identify disparity-sensitive measures in surgical care. STUDY DESIGN: An environmental scan, systematic literature review, and subspecialty society surveys were conducted to identify potential disparity-sensitive surgical measures. A modified Delphi process was conducted where panelists rated measures on both importance and validity. In addition, a novel literature-based disparity-sensitive scoring process was used. RESULTS: We identified 841 potential disparity-sensitive surgical measures. From these, our Delphi and literature-based approaches yielded a consensus list of 125 candidate disparity-sensitive measures. These measures were rated as both valid and important and were supported by the existing literature. CONCLUSION: There are profound disparities in surgical care within the US healthcare system. A multidisciplinary Delphi panel identified 125 potential disparity-sensitive surgical measures that could be used to track health disparities, evaluate the impact of focused interventions, and reduce healthcare inequity.

Development and Validation of a Novel Literature-Based Method to Identify Disparity-Sensitive Surgical Quality Metrics.

BACKGROUND: Disparity in surgical care impedes the delivery of uniformly high-quality care. Metrics that quantify disparity in care can help identify areas for needed intervention. A literature-based Disparity-Sensitive Score (DSS) system for surgical care was adapted by the Metrics for Equitable Access and Care in Surgery (MEASUR) group. The alignment between the MEASUR DSS and Delphi ratings of an expert advisory panel (EAP) regarding the disparity sensitivity of surgical quality metrics was assessed. STUDY DESIGN: Using DSS criteria MEASUR co-investigators scored 534 surgical metrics which were subsequently rated by the EAP. All scores were converted to a 9-point scale. Agreement between the new measurement technique (ie DSS) and an established subjective technique (ie importance and validity ratings) were assessed using the Bland-Altman method, adjusting for the linear relationship between the paired difference and the paired average. The limit of agreement (LOA) was set at 1.96 SD (95%). RESULTS: The percentage of DSS scores inside the LOA was 96.8% (LOA, 0.02 points) for the importance rating and 94.6% (LOA, 1.5 points) for the validity rating. In comparison, 94.4% of the 2 subjective EAP ratings were inside the LOA (0.7 points). CONCLUSIONS: Applying the MEASUR DSS criteria using available literature allowed for identification of disparity-sensitive surgical metrics. The results suggest that this literature-based method of selecting quality metrics may be comparable to more complex consensus-based Delphi methods. In fields with robust literature, literature-based composite scores may be used to select quality metrics rather than assembling consensus panels.

Association of emergency department length of stay with safety-net status.

CONTEXT: Performance measures, particularly pay for performance, may have unintended consequences for safety-net institutions caring for disproportionate shares of Medicaid or uninsured patients. OBJECTIVE: To describe emergency department (ED) compliance with proposed length-of-stay measures for admissions (8 hours or 480 minutes) and discharges, transfers, and observations (4 hours or 240 minutes) by safety-net status. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The 2008 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) ED data were stratified by safety-net status (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition) and disposition (admission, discharge, observation, transfer). The 2008 NHAMCS is a national probability sample of 396 hospitals (90.2% unweighted response rate) and 34 134 patient records. Visits were excluded for patients younger than 18 years, missing length-of-stay data or dispositions of missing, other, left against medical advice, or dead on arrival. Median and 90th percentile ED lengths of stay were calculated for each disposition and admission/discharge subcategories (critical care, psychiatric, routine) stratified by safety-net status. Multivariable analyses determined associations with length-of-stay measure compliance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Emergency Department length-of-stay measure compliance by disposition and safety-net status. RESULTS: Of the 72.1% ED visits (N = 24 719) included in the analysis, 42.3% were to safety-net EDs and 57.7% were to non-safety-net EDs. The median length of stay for safety-net was 269 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 178-397 minutes) for admission vs 281 minutes (IQR, 178-401 minutes) for non-safety-net EDs; 156 minutes (IQR, 95-239 minutes) for discharge vs 148 minutes (IQR, 88-238 minutes); 355 minutes (IQR, 221-675 minutes) for observations vs 298 minutes (IQR, 195-440 minutes); and 235 minutes (IQR, 155-378 minutes) for transfers vs 239 minutes (IQR, 142-368 minutes). Safety-net status was not independently associated with compliance with ED length-of-stay measures; the odds ratio was 0.83 for admissions (95% CI, 0.52-1.34); 1.03 for discharges (95% CI, 0.83-1.27); 1.05 for observations (95% CI, 0.57-1.95), 1.30 for transfers (95% CI, 0.70-2.45]); or subcategories except for psychiatric discharges (1.67, [95% CI, 1.02-2.74]). CONCLUSION: Compliance with proposed ED length-of-stay measures for admissions, discharges, transfers, and observations did not differ significantly between safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals.

The Path Forward: Using Metrics to Promote Equitable Work Environments.

Women continue to be underrepresented in medicine, especially in senior leadership positions, and they experience challenges related to gender bias and sexual harassment. Women who are members of multiple groups that experience marginalization, including, for example, women who are American Indian, Alaskan native, indigenous, Black, or Hispanic, face a compounded challenge. In this article, we explore how institutions and professional organizations in medicine can use metrics to better understand the structural disparities that create and promote gender inequity in the work environment and how to employ these metrics to track progress in narrowing these gaps. Examples in health care (clinical medicine, scientific organizations, scientific publishing), business, and law are used to illustrate how impactful metrics can promote accountability when coupled with transparent reporting.

Centers speak up: the clinical context for health information technology in the ambulatory care setting.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians in ambulatory care settings are increasingly called upon to use health information technology (health IT) to improve practice efficiency and performance. Successful adoption of health IT requires an understanding of how clinical tasks and workflows will be affected; yet this has not been well described. OBJECTIVE: To describe how health IT functions within a clinical context. DESIGN: Qualitative study, using in-depth, semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Executives and staff at 4 community health centers, 3 health center networks, and 1 large primary care organization. APPROACH: Transcribed audio-recorded interviews, analyzed using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Systematic characterization of clinical context identified 6 primary clinical domains. These included results management, intra-clinic communication, patient education and outreach, inter-clinic coordination, medication management, and provider education and feedback. We generated clinical process diagrams to characterize these domains. Participants suggested that underlying workflows for these domains must be fully operational to ensure successful deployment of health IT. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the clinical context is a necessary precursor to successful deployment of health IT. Process diagrams can serve as the basis for EHR certification, to identify challenges, to measure health IT adoption, or to develop curricular content regarding the role of health IT in clinical practice.

A comparison of outcomes resulting from generalist vs specialist care for a single discrete medical condition: a systematic review and methodologic critique.

BACKGROUND: Studies of clinical outcomes for generalist vs specialist care for diagnoses within a specialist's narrow domain have tended to favor specialty care. METHODS: A MEDLINE search from January 1, 1980, through April 1, 2005, and a hand search of retrieved bibliographies of English-language studies that compared generalist vs specialist care for individual patients with a single discrete medical condition were performed. Two reviewers determined eligibility for each study and abstracted data onto a standardized instrument. RESULTS: A total of 49 articles met our inclusion criteria: 24 studies favored specialty care, 13 found no difference in outcomes, 7 varied by individual outcome, 1 depended on physician experience, and 4 favored generalist care. Only 8 studies reported integration into health delivery systems, 4 considered physician experience, 3 documented information technology support, and 2 considered the impact of care management programs. Selection bias was adequately addressed in 58% of studies that favored specialty care and in 71% of studies that found no difference or favored generalist care (P = .52). Studies that favored specialty care were less likely to consider 4 key, potentially confounding physician or practice characteristics compared with studies that found no difference or favored generalist care (3% vs 15% of potential instances, respectively; P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: The literature regarding the influence of generalist vs specialist care on outcomes for patients with a single discrete condition suffers from important methodologic shortcomings. Further research is needed to inform health care policy as it pertains to the optimal role of generalists and specialists in the physician marketplace.

Promoting Health Equity And Eliminating Disparities Through Performance Measurement And Payment.

Current approaches to health care quality have failed to reduce health care disparities. Despite dramatic increases in the use of quality measurement and associated payment policies, there has been no notable implementation of measurement strategies to reduce health disparities. The National Quality Forum developed a road map to demonstrate how measurement and associated policies can contribute to eliminating disparities and promote health equity. Specifically, the road map presents a four-part strategy whose components are identifying and prioritizing areas to reduce health disparities, implementing evidence-based interventions to reduce disparities, investing in the development and use of health equity performance measures, and incentivizing the reduction of health disparities and achievement of health equity. To demonstrate how the road map can be applied, we present an example of how measurement and value-based payment can be used to reduce racial disparities in hypertension among African Americans.