Emergency Department Query for Patient-Centered Approaches to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity : The EQUALITY Study.

Importance: The Institute of Medicine and The Joint Commission recommend routine documentation of patients' sexual orientation in health care settings. Currently, very few health care systems collect these data since patient preferences and health care professionals' support regarding collection of data about patient sexual orientation are unknown. Objective: To identify the optimal patient-centered approach to collect sexual orientation data in the emergency department (ED) in the Emergency Department Query for Patient-Centered Approaches to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity study. Design, Setting, and Participants: An exploratory, sequential, mixed-methods design was used first to evaluate qualitative interviews conducted in the Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC, areas. Fifty-three patients and 26 health care professionals participated in the qualitative interviews. Interviews were followed by a national online survey, in which 1516 (potential) patients (244 lesbian, 289 gay, 179 bisexual, and 804 straight) and 429 ED health care professionals (209 physicians and 220 nurses) participated. Survey participants were recruited using random digit dialing and address-based sampling techniques. Main Outcomes and Measures: Qualitative interviews were used to obtain the perspectives of patients and health care professionals on sexual orientation data collection, and a quantitative survey was used to gauge patients' and health care professionals' willingness to provide or obtain sexual orientation information. Results: Mean (SD) age of patient and clinician participants was 49 (16.4) and 51 (9.4) years, respectively. Qualitative interviews suggested that patients were less likely to refuse to provide sexual orientation than providers expected. Nationally, 154 patients (10.3%) reported that they would refuse to provide sexual orientation; however, 333 (77.8%) of all clinicians thought patients would refuse to provide sexual orientation. After adjustment for demographic characteristics, only bisexual patients had increased odds of refusing to provide sexual orientation compared with heterosexual patients (odds ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.26-4.56). Conclusions and Relevance: Patients and health care professionals have discordant views on routine collection of data on sexual orientation. A minority of patients would refuse to provide sexual orientation. Implementation of a standardized, patient-centered approach for routine collection of sexual orientation data is required on a national scale to help to identify and address health disparities among lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations.

Is It Okay To Ask: Transgender Patient Perspectives on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Collection in Healthcare.

OBJECTIVE: The National Academy of Medicine and Joint Commission recommend routine documentation of sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI) in healthcare to address lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) health disparities. We explored transgender patient-reported views on the importance on SO/GI collection, their willingness to disclose, and their perceived facilitators of SO/GI collection in primary care and emergency department (ED) settings. METHODS: We recruited a national sample of self-identified transgender patients. Participants completed demographic questions, survey questions, and free-response comments regarding their views on SO/GI collection. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics; inductive content analysis was conducted with open-ended responses. RESULTS: Patients mostly self-identified as male gender (54.5%), white (58.4%), and SO other than heterosexual or LGB (33.7%; N = 101). Patients felt that it was more important for primary care providers to know their GI than SO (89.1% vs. 57%; p < 0.001); there was no difference among reported importance for ED providers to know the patients' SO versus GI. Females were more likely than males to report medical relevance to chief complaint as a facilitator to SO disclosure (89.1% vs. 80%; p = 0.02) and less likely to identify routine collection from all patients as a facilitator to GI disclosure (67.4% vs. 78.2%; p = 0.09). Qualitatively, many patients reported that medical relevance to chief complaint and an LGBT-friendly environment would increase willingness to disclose their SO/GI. Patients also reported need for educating providers in LGBT health prior to implementing routine SO/GI collection. CONCLUSIONS: Patients see the importance of providing GI more than SO to providers; nonetheless they are willing to disclose SO/GI in general.. Findings also suggest that gender differences may exist in facilitators of SO/GI disclosure. Given the underrepresentation of transgender patients in healthcare, it is crucial for providers to address their concerns with SO/GI disclosure, which include LGBT education for medical staff and provision of a safe environment.