Understanding Contributors to Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Emergency Department Throughput Times: a Sequential Mixed Methods Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring equitable care remains a critical issue for healthcare systems. Nationwide evidence highlights the persistence of healthcare disparities and the need for research-informed approaches for reducing them at the local level. OBJECTIVE: To characterize key contributors in racial/ethnic disparities in emergency department (ED) throughput times. DESIGN: We conducted a sequential mixed methods analysis to understand variations in ED care throughput times for patients eventually admitted to an emergency department at a single academic medical center from November 2017 to May 2018 (n=3152). We detailed patient progression from ED arrival to decision to admit and compared racial/ethnic differences in time intervals from electronic medical record time-stamp data. We then estimated the relationships between race/ethnicity and ED throughput times, adjusting for several patient-level variables and ED-level covariates. These quantitative analyses informed our qualitative study design, which included observations and semi-structured interviews with patients and physicians. KEY RESULTS: Non-Hispanic Black as compared to non-Hispanic White patients waited significantly longer during the time interval from arrival to the physician's decision to admit, even after adjustment for several ED-level and patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic variables (Beta (average minutes) (SE): 16.35 (5.8); p value=.005). Qualitative findings suggest that the manner in which providers communicate, advocate, and prioritize patients may contribute to such disparities. When the race/ethnicity of provider and patient differed, providers were more likely to interrupt patients, ignore their requests, and make less eye contact. Conversely, if the race/ethnicity of provider and patient were similar, providers exhibited a greater level of advocacy, such as tracking down patient labs or consultants. Physicians with no significant ED throughput disparities articulated objective criteria such as triage scores for prioritizing patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest the importance of (1) understanding how our communication style and care may differ by race/ethnicity; and (2) taking advantage of structured processes designed to equalize care.

Evaluating the Quality of Research Ethics Review and Oversight: A Systematic Analysis of Quality Assessment Instruments.

BACKGROUND: Research ethics review committees (RERCs) and Human Research Protection Programs (HRPPs) are responsible for protecting the rights and welfare of research participants while avoiding unnecessary inhibition of valuable research. Evaluating RERC/HRPP quality is vital to determining whether they are achieving these goals effectively and efficiently, as well as what adjustments might be necessary. Various tools, standards, and accreditation mechanisms have been developed in the United States and internationally to measure and promote RERC/HRPP quality. METHODS: We systematically reviewed 10 quality assessment instruments, examining their overall approaches, factors considered relevant to quality, how they compare to each other, and what they leave out. For each tool, we counted the number of times each of 34 topics (divided into structure, process, and outcome categories) was mentioned. We generated lists of which topics are most and least mentioned for each tool, which are most prevalent across tools, and which are left unmentioned. We also conducted content analysis for the 10 most common topics. RESULTS: We found wide variability between instruments, common emphasis on process and structure with little attention to participant outcomes, and failure to identify clear priorities for assessment. The most frequently mentioned topics are Review Type, IRB Member Expertise, Training and Educational Resources, Protocol Maintenance, Record Keeping, and Mission, Approach, and Culture. Participant Outcomes is unmentioned in 8 tools; the remaining 2 tools include assessments based on adverse events, failures of informed consent, and consideration of participant experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis confirms that RERC/HRPP quality assessment instruments largely rely on surrogate measures of participant protection. To prioritize between these measures and preserve limited resources for evaluating the most important criteria, we recommend that instruments focus on elements relevant to participant outcomes, robust board deliberation, and procedures most likely to address participant risks. Validation of these approaches remains an essential next step.

A pilot study on community-based outpatient treatment for patients with chronic psychotic disorders in Somalia: Change in symptoms, functioning and co-morbid khat use.

BACKGROUND: In Low and Middle Income Countries, mental health services are often poorly developed due to the lack of resources and trained personnel. In order to overcome these challenges, new ways of care have been suggested such as a focus on community-based services. In Somalia, the consumption of the natural stimulant khat is highly prevalent, aggravating mental illness. At the same time, mental health care is largely unavailable to the vast majority of the population. In a pilot project, we tested possibilities for effective measures in community-based out-patient mental health care. METHODS: Thirty-five male patients with chronic psychotic disorders and their carers were involved in a 10-months follow-up study. All of them abused khat. Seventeen outpatients experiencing acute psychotic episodes were recruited from the community and received an intensive six week home-based treatment package. Additionally eighteen patients with chronic psychotic disorders in remission were recruited either following hospital discharge or from the community. In a second phase of the study, both groups received community-based relapse prevention that differed in the degree of the family's responsibility for the treatment. The treatment package was comprised of psycho-education, low-dose neuroleptic treatment, monthly home visits and counseling. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) was applied three times. Additionally, we assessed functioning, khat use and other outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 35 patients enrolled in the study, 33 participated in the 10-month follow-up. Outpatients improved significantly in the first six weeks of treatment and did not differ from remitted patients at the start of the second treatment phase. In the preventive treatment phase, we find heterogeneous outcomes that diverge between symptom and functioning domains. With the exception of depressive symptoms, symptoms in all patients tended to worsen. The outpatient group had higher BPRS positive and negative symptom scores compared to the remitted group. Levels of functioning in 20 out of 33 patients significantly improved, with small differences between groups. Most patients experienced improvements in basic functioning, such as communication, self-care etc. Khat use could only be reduced in the group of outpatients. CONCLUSIONS: Community-based out-patient mental health treatment for chronic psychotic disorders has demonstrated positive effects in Somalia and is both feasible and practical, despite facing formidable challenges, e.g. controlling khat intake.