Identifying and preventing medical errors in patients with limited English proficiency: key findings and tools for the field.

Since the 1999 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report To Err is Human, progress has been made in patient safety, but few efforts have focused on safety in patients with limited English proficiency (LEP). This article describes the development, content, and testing of two new evidence-based Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) tools for LEP patient safety. In the content development phase, a comprehensive mixed-methods approach was used to identify common causes of errors for LEP patients, high-risk scenarios, and evidence-based strategies to address them. Based on our findings, Improving Patient Safety Systems for Limited English Proficient Patients: A Guide for Hospitals contains recommendations to improve detection and prevention of medical errors across diverse populations, and TeamSTEPPS Enhancing Safety for Patients with Limited English Proficiency Module trains staff to improve safety through team communication and incorporating interpreters in the care process. The Hospital Guide was validated with leaders in quality and safety at diverse hospitals, and the TeamSTEPPS LEP module was field-tested in varied settings within three hospitals. Both tools were found to be implementable, acceptable to their audiences, and conducive to learning. Further research on the impact of the combined use of the guide and module would shed light on their value as a multifaceted intervention.

Barriers to care for Cambodian patients with diabetes: results from a qualitative study.

Racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes care have been well documented. While root causes have been explored for some minority groups, less is known about smaller immigrant populations such as Cambodians. In this study, we sought to explore the potential barriers to care for Cambodian patients with diabetes. We conducted five focus groups with three study groups: health care providers, bilingual Khmer frontline staff, and Cambodian patients with diabetes. Focus groups findings revealed that certain cultural beliefs, low health literacy, and language barriers strongly affect Cambodian patients' understanding of diabetes and self-management, as well as clinicians' ability to care effectively for Cambodian patients with diabetes. Our study supports previous literature and also adds several new insights not previously described. We recommend education for health care providers on patient-centered, cross-cultural care with an emphasis on the needs of Cambodians as well as culturally appropriate diabetes education for patients.

Unequal treatment in the US: lessons and recommendations for cancer care internationally.

Despite interventions that have improved the overall health of the majority of Americans, racial and ethnic minorities have benefited less from these advances. Research has shown that multiple factors contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in health, health care, and cancer care. The Institute of Medicine Report, "Unequal Treatment" provides a detailed examination of racial/ethnic disparities in health care in the U.S., highlighting three clinical contributors--poor provider-patient communication, stereotyping in clinical decisionmaking, and patient mistrust. Although the findings and recommendations in "Unequal Treatment" are broad in scope, they provide a blueprint for how to address disparities in health care in general-as well as cancer care-and have direct implications for clinical practice, both nationally and internationally. We propose a patient-based approach to cross-cultural care as a model to improve communication with racial and ethnic minorities, and cross-cultural populations in general. We also highlight the importance of community based interventions, such as those that use health care navigators to promote cancer screening. If we hope to provide effective cancer care around the world, we must be attentive to the factors that impact minorities and vulnerable populations, and be prepared to address them.

Hierarchy as a barrier to advancement for women in academic medicine.

BACKGROUND: Research on barriers to professional advancement for women in academic medicine has not adequately considered the role of environmental factors and how the structure of organizations affects professional advancement and work experiences. This article examines the impact of the hierarchy, including both the organization's hierarchical structure and professionals' perceptions of this structure, in medical school organization on faculty members' experience and advancement in academic medicine. METHODS: As part of an inductive qualitative study of faculty in five disparate U.S. medical schools, we interviewed 96 medical faculty at different career stages and in diverse specialties, using in-depth semistructured interviews, about their perceptions about and experiences in academic medicine. Data were coded and analysis was conducted in the grounded theory tradition. RESULTS: Our respondents saw the hierarchy of chairs, based on the indeterminate tenure of department chairs, as a central characteristic of the structure of academic medicine. Many faculty saw this hierarchy as affecting inclusion, reducing transparency in decision making, and impeding advancement. Indeterminate chair terms lessen turnover and may create a bottleneck for advancement. Both men and women faculty perceived this hierarchy, but women saw it as more consequential. CONCLUSIONS: The hierarchical structure of academic medicine has a significant impact on faculty work experiences, including advancement, especially for women. We suggest that medical schools consider alternative models of leadership and managerial styles, including fixed terms for chairs with a greater emphasis on inclusion. This is a structural reform that could increase opportunities for advancement especially for women in academic medicine.

How are patient characteristics relevant for physicians' clinical decision making in diabetes? An analysis of qualitative results from a cross-national factorial experiment.

Variations in medical practice have been widely documented and are a linchpin in explanations of health disparities. Evidence shows that clinical decision making varies according to patient, provider and health system characteristics. However, less is known about the processes underlying these aggregate associations and how physicians interpret various patient attributes. Verbal protocol analysis (otherwise known as 'think-aloud') techniques were used to analyze open-ended data from 244 physicians to examine which patient characteristics physicians identify as relevant for their decision making. Data are from a vignette-based factorial experiment measuring the effects of: (a) patient attributes (age, gender, race and socioeconomic status); (b) physician characteristics (gender and years of clinical experience); and (c) features of the healthcare system in two countries (USA, United Kingdom) on clinical decision making for diabetes. We find that physicians used patients' demographic characteristics only as a starting point in their assessments, and proceeded to make detailed assessments about cognitive ability, motivation, social support and other factors they consider predictive of adherence with medical recommendations and therefore relevant to treatment decisions. These non-medical characteristics of patients were mentioned with much greater consistency than traditional biophysiologic markers of risk such as race, gender, and age. Types of explanations identified varied somewhat according to patient characteristics and to the country in which the interview took place. Results show that basic demographic characteristics are inadequate to the task of capturing information physicians draw from doctor-patient encounters, and that in order to fully understand differential clinical decision making there is a need to move beyond documentation of aggregate associations and further explore the mental and social processes at work.