Interventions to improve outcomes for minority adults with asthma: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the literature to characterize interventions with potential to improve outcomes for minority patients with asthma. DATA SOURCES: Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Trial Databases, expert review, reference review, meeting abstracts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTEVENTIONS: Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms related to asthma were combined with terms to identify intervention studies focused on minority populations. INCLUSION CRITERIA: adult population; intervention studies with majority of non-White participants. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS OF METHODS: Study quality was assessed using Downs and Black (DB) checklists. We examined heterogeneity of studies through comparing study population, study design, intervention characteristics, and outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles met inclusion criteria. Mean quality score was 21.0. Study populations targeted primarily African American (n = 14), followed by Latino/a (n = 4), Asian Americans (n = 1), or a combination of the above (n = 5). The most commonly reported post-intervention outcome was use of health care resources, followed by symptom control and self-management skills. The most common intervention-type studied was patient education. Although less-than half were culturally tailored, language-appropriate education appeared particularly successful. Several system-level interventions focused on specialty clinics with promising findings, although health disparities collaboratives did not have similarly promising results. LIMITATIONS: Publication bias may limit our findings; we were unable to perform a meta-analysis limiting the review's quantitative evaluation. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Overall, education delivered by health care professionals appeared effective in improving outcomes for minority patients with asthma. Few were culturally tailored and one included a comparison group, limiting the conclusions that can be drawn from cultural tailoring. System-redesign showed great promise, particularly the use of team-based specialty clinics and long-term follow-up after acute care visits. Future research should evaluate the role of tailoring educational strategies, focus on patient-centered education, and incorporate outpatient follow-up and/or a team-based approach.

The Chicago Breathe Project: a regional approach to improving education on asthma inhalers for resident physicians and minority patients.

BACKGROUND: Asthma affects minority citizens in Chicago disproportionately. Policy changes introducing hydrofluroalkane (HFA) inhalers may worsen already-existing health disparities related to asthma. AIMS: To teach internal medicine residents about the transition to HFAs so they can better counsel their patients on asthma self-management. To provide minority community members with interactive educational sessions. SETTING: Internal medicine residents at 5 Chicago programs. Community workshops in primarily Spanish-speaking (Cicero) Latino population and a primarily African American population from the south side of Chicago. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The Chicago Breathe Project provides residents with education and tools necessary to counsel patients with asthma on inhaler use and provides minority community members with interactive educational sessions on asthma and inhaler use. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Eleven workshops were held across 5 academic institutions, with a total of 161 residents. Resident knowledge regarding HFA inhalers improved dramatically (5% pre vs. 91% post, p < .001). Six months post education, residents were more likely to assess inhaler technique (44% vs. 11%, p = .046) and discuss new HFA inhalers (69% vs. 24%, p = .011) with their asthma patients. Community members provided feedback after the workshops that they would come again, found the session helpful ,and enjoyed the session. DISCUSSION: The Chicago Breathe Project resulted in improved resident knowledge and skill on inhaler use during HFA transition. Regional educational approaches targeting internal medicine residencies in urban areas may be helpful to address future changes in chronic disease management. This training can be taken into minority communities to provide high-quality interactive educational workshops directly to patients and their families.

Incoming interns' perspectives on the institute of medicine recommendations for residents' duty hours.

BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has announced revisions to the resident duty hour standards in light of a 2008 Institute of Medicine report that recommended further limits. Soliciting resident input regarding the future of duty hours is critical to ensure trainee buy-in. PURPOSE: To assess incoming intern perceptions of duty hour restrictions at 3 teaching hospitals. METHODS: We administered an anonymous survey to incoming interns during orientation at 3 teaching hospitals affiliated with 2 Midwestern medical schools in 2009. Survey questions assessed interns' perceptions of maximum shift length, days off, ACGME oversight, and preferences for a "fatigued post-call intern who admitted patient" versus "well-rested covering intern who just picked up patient" for various clinical scenarios. RESULTS: Eighty-six percent (299/346) of interns responded. Although 59% agreed that residents should not work over 16 hours without a break, 50% of interns favored the current limits. The majority (78%) of interns desired ability to exceed shift limit for rare cases or clinical opportunities. Most interns (90%) favored oversight by the ACGME, and 97% preferred a well-rested intern for performing a procedure. Meanwhile, only 48% of interns preferred a well-rested intern for discharging a patient or having an end of life discussion. Interns who favored 16-hour limits were less concerned with negative consequences of duty hour restrictions (handoffs, reduced clinical experience) and more likely to choose the well-rested intern for certain scenarios (odds ratio 2.33, 95% confidence interval 1.42-3.85, P  =  .001). CONCLUSIONS: Incoming intern perceptions on limiting duty hours vary. Many interns desire flexibility to exceed limits for interesting clinical opportunities and favor ACGME oversight. Clinical context matters when interns consider the tradeoffs between fatigue and discontinuity.