Spiritual beliefs and barriers among managed care practitioners.

PURPOSE: Ninety percent of American adults believe in God and 82% pray weekly. A majority wants their physicians to address spirituality during their health care visit. However, clinicians incorporate spiritual discussion in less than 20% of visits. Our objectives were to measure clinician beliefs and identify perceived barriers to integrating spirituality into patient care in a statewide, primary care, managed care group. METHODS: Practitioners completed a 30-item survey including demographics and religious involvement (DUREL), spirituality in patient care (SPC), and barriers (BAR). We analyzed data using frequencies, means, standard deviations, and ANOVA. FINDINGS: Clinicians had a range of religious denominations (67% Christian, 14% Jewish, 11% Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist, 8% agnostic), were 57% female and 24% had training in spirituality. Sixty-six percent reported experiencing the divine. Ninety-five percent felt that a patient's spiritual outlook was important to handling health difficulties and 68% percent agreed that addressing spirituality was part of the physician's role. Ninety-five percent of our managed care group noted 'lack of time' as an important barrier, 'lack of training' was indicated by 69%, and 21% cited 'fear of response from administration'. CONCLUSIONS: Managed care practitioners in a time constrained setting were spiritual themselves and believed this to be important to patients. Respondents indicated barriers of time and training to implementing these beliefs. Comparing responses from our group to those in other published surveys on clinician spirituality, we find similar concerns. Clinician education may overcome these barriers and improve ability to more fully meet their patients' expressed needs regarding spirituality and beliefs.

Cultural competence: a systematic review of health care provider educational interventions.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to synthesize the findings of studies evaluating interventions to improve the cultural competence of health professionals. DESIGN: This was a systematic literature review and analysis. METHODS: We performed electronic and hand searches from 1980 through June 2003 to identify studies that evaluated interventions designed to improve the cultural competence of health professionals. We abstracted and synthesized data from studies that had both a before- and an after-intervention evaluation or had a control group for comparison and graded the strength of the evidence as excellent, good, fair, or poor using predetermined criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We sought evidence of the effectiveness and costs of cultural competence training of health professionals. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were included in our review. There is excellent evidence that cultural competence training improves the knowledge of health professionals (17 of 19 studies demonstrated a beneficial effect), and good evidence that cultural competence training improves the attitudes and skills of health professionals (21 of 25 studies evaluating attitudes demonstrated a beneficial effect and 14 of 14 studies evaluating skills demonstrated a beneficial effect). There is good evidence that cultural competence training impacts patient satisfaction (3 of 3 studies demonstrated a beneficial effect), poor evidence that cultural competence training impacts patient adherence (although the one study designed to do this demonstrated a beneficial effect), and no studies that have evaluated patient health status outcomes. There is poor evidence to determine the costs of cultural competence training (5 studies included incomplete estimates of costs). CONCLUSIONS: Cultural competence training shows promise as a strategy for improving the knowledge, attitudes, and skills of health professionals. However, evidence that it improves patient adherence to therapy, health outcomes, and equity of services across racial and ethnic groups is lacking. Future research should focus on these outcomes and should determine which teaching methods and content are most effective.

Outpatient therapy with low molecular weight heparin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism: a review of efficacy, safety, and costs.

PURPOSE: To summarize the evidence comparing the efficacy, safety, and costs of outpatient and inpatient treatment of venous thromboembolism. METHODS: We searched the literature through March 2002 for studies comparing outpatient and inpatient treatment of venous thromboembolism with low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin, and for studies addressing the costs of low molecular weight heparin use in any setting. We included studies with comparison groups or decision analyses. RESULTS: Eight studies (three randomized trials and five cohort studies) compared outpatient use of low molecular weight heparin with inpatient use of unfractionated heparin in 3762 patients. The incidence of recurrent deep venous thrombosis was similar in the two groups (median, 4% [range, 0% to 7%] vs. 6% [range, 0% to 9%]), as was major bleeding (median, 0.5% [range, 0% to 2%] vs. 1% [range, 0% to 2%]). Use of low molecular weight heparin was associated with shorter hospitalization (median, 2.7 days [range, 0.03 to 5.1 days] vs. 6.5 days [range, 4 to 9.6 days]) and lower costs (median difference, 1600 dollars). Comparisons of outpatient and in-hospital use of low molecular weight heparin reported no difference in outcomes, but there were savings in hospitalization costs. Low molecular weight heparin was also found to be more cost saving and cost-effective than unfractionated heparin, with savings of 0% to 64% (median, 57%). CONCLUSION: The evidence indicates that outpatient treatment of deep venous thrombosis with low molecular weight heparin is likely to be efficacious, safe, and cost-effective.