Implementing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data Collection in Emergency Departments: Patient and Staff Perspectives

Purpose: To identify patient and provider perspectives concerning collection of sexual orientation and gender identity (SO&GI) information in emergency departments (EDs). Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted during the period of 2014-2015 with a diverse purposive sample of patients across the spectrum of sexual orientation and gender identities (n = 53) and ED nurses, physician assistants, physicians, and registrars (n = 38) in a major metropolitan area. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by multiple coders using constant comparative methods. Results: Patients were willing to provide SO&GI information if collected safely and appropriately, and staff described willingness to collect SO&GI information to inform understanding of health disparities. Key themes across respondents were as follows: What will be done with the data? How will it be collected? Who will collect it? Is the environment conducive to safe disclosure? Confidentiality and potential sensitivity; standardized collection emphasizing population health; nurse intake and/or nonverbal data collection; and environmental cues and cultural competency promoting comfort for sexual and gender minorities emerged as critical considerations for effective implementation. Conclusion: Staff and patients are amenable to SO&GI data collection in EDs, but data quality and patient and provider comfort may be compromised without attention to specific implementation considerations

Implementing sexual orientation and gender identity data collection in emergency departments: Patient and staff perspectives

Purpose: To identify patient and provider perspectives concerning collection of sexual orientation and gender identity (SO&GI) information in emergency departments (EDs). Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted during the period of 2014-2015 with a diverse purposive sample of patients across the spectrum of sexual orientation and gender identities (n = 53) and ED nurses, physician assistants, physicians, and registrars (n = 38) in a major metropolitan area. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by multiple coders using constant comparative methods. Results: Patients were willing to provide SO&GI information if collected safely and appropriately, and staff described willingness to collect SO&GI information to inform understanding of health disparities. Key themes across respondents were as follows: What will be done with the data? How will it be collected? Who will collect it? Is the environment conducive to safe disclosure? Confidentiality and potential sensitivity; standardized collection emphasizing population health; nurse intake and/or nonverbal data collection; and environmental cues and cultural competency promoting comfort for sexual and gender minorities emerged as critical considerations for effective implementation. Conclusion: Staff and patients are amenable to SO&GI data collection in EDs, but data quality and patient and provider comfort may be compromised without attention to specific implementation considerations

From understanding to action: Interventions for surgical disparities

Background: Health care disparities are a well-documented phenomenon. Despite the development and implementation of multiple interventions, disparities in surgery have proven persistent. Thought to arise from a combination of patient, provider, and system-level factors, the objective of this study was to identify what is currently known about factors that influence surgical disparities and elucidate possible interventions to address them across four intervention-based themes: (1) condition-specific targeted interventions; (2) increased reliance on quantitative factors; (3) doctor-patient communication; and (4) cultural humility. Data sources: Articles were abstracted from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library using controlled keyword vocabulary. Conclusions: There are various forms of interventions to address surgical disparities, spanning knowledge from disparate fields. Promising efforts have emerged towards the successful alleviation of disparities. In order to move the field of surgery from understanding of disparities towards actions to mitigate them, continued development of meaningful quality improvement initiatives are neede

Surgeons’ perceptions toward providing care for diverse patients: The need for cultural dexterity training

Objective: We sought to understand the experiences of surgical residents and faculty with treating culturally diverse patients, and identify recommendations for establishing and implementing structured cultural competency training. Summary background data: Cultural competency training for medical professionals could reduce healthcare disparities, yet is currently not a standard part of surgical residency training. Few studies have explored the perspectives of surgical residents and faculty on the skills needed to provide cross-cultural care. Study design: A purposeful sample of surgical residents and faculty from 4 academic institutions was recruited for semistructured qualitative interviews. We developed an in-depth interview guide and performed interviews to thematic saturation. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using grounded theory methodology. Results: We interviewed 16 attending surgeons and 15 surgical residents. Participant demographics were: male (51.6%), White (58.1%), Black (9.7%), Asian (22.5%), and Hispanic (9.7%). Four main themes emerged from the data: 1) aspects of culture that can inform patient care; 2) specific cultural challenges related to surgical care, including informed consent, pain management, difficult diagnoses and refusal of treatment, emergency situations, and end-of-life issues; 3) need for culturally competent care in surgery to navigate cultural differences; 4) perceived challenges and facilitators to incorporating cultural competency into the current training paradigm. Conclusions: Surgeons identified the need to provide better cross-cultural care and proposed tenets for training. Based on these findings, we suggest the development and dissemination of a cultural dexterity training program that will provide surgeons with specific knowledge and skills to care for patients from diverse sociocultural background

Risks, benefits, and importance of collecting sexual orientation and gender identity data in healthcare settings: A multi-method analysis of patient and provider perspectives

Purpose: Research suggests that LGBT populations experience barriers to healthcare. Organizations such as the Institute of Medicine recommend routine documentation of sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI) in healthcare, to reduce LGBT disparities. We explore patient views regarding the importance of SO/GI collection, and patient and provider views on risks and benefits of routine SO/GI collection in various settings.Methods: We surveyed LGBT/non-LGBT patients and providers on their views on SO/GI collection. Weighted data were analyzed with descriptive statistics; content analysis was conducted with open-ended responses.Results: One-half of the 1516 patients and 60% of 429 providers were female; 64% of patients and 71% of providers were White. Eighty percent of providers felt that collecting SO data would offend patients, whereas only 11% of patients reported that they would be offended. Patients rated it as more important for primary care providers to know the SO of all patients compared with emergency department (ED) providers knowing the SO of all patients (41.3% vs. 31.6%; P \u3c 0.001). Patients commonly perceived individualized care as an SO/GI disclosure benefit, whereas providers perceived patient-provider interaction improvement as the main benefit. Patient comments cited bias/discrimination risk most frequently (49.7%; N = 781), whereas provider comments cited patient discomfort/offense most frequently (54.5%; N = 433).Conclusion: Patients see the importance of SO/GI more in primary care than ED settings. However, many LGBT patients seek ED care due to factors including uninsurance; therefore, the ED may represent an initial point of contact for SO/GI collection. Therefore, patient-centered approaches to collecting SO/GI are needed. Patients and providers differed in perceived risks and benefits to routine SO/GI collection. Provider training in LGBT health may address patients\u27 bias/discrimination concerns, and ultimately reduce LGBT health disparities

Risks, Benefits, and Importance of Collecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data in Healthcare Settings: A Multi-Method Analysis of Patient and Provider Perspectives

Purpose: Research suggests that LGBT populations experience barriers to healthcare. Organizations such as the Institute of Medicine recommend routine documentation of sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI) in healthcare, to reduce LGBT disparities. We explore patient views regarding the importance of SO/GI collection, and patient and provider views on risks and benefits of routine SO/GI collection in various settings.Methods: We surveyed LGBT/non-LGBT patients and providers on their views on SO/GI collection. Weighted data were analyzed with descriptive statistics; content analysis was conducted with open-ended responses.Results: One-half of the 1516 patients and 60% of 429 providers were female; 64% of patients and 71% of providers were White. Eighty percent of providers felt that collecting SO data would offend patients, whereas only 11% of patients reported that they would be offended. Patients rated it as more important for primary care providers to know the SO of all patients compared with emergency department (ED) providers knowing the SO of all patients (41.3% vs. 31.6%; P \u3c 0.001). Patients commonly perceived individualized care as an SO/GI disclosure benefit, whereas providers perceived patient-provider interaction improvement as the main benefit. Patient comments cited bias/discrimination risk most frequently (49.7%; N = 781), whereas provider comments cited patient discomfort/offense most frequently (54.5%; N = 433).Conclusion: Patients see the importance of SO/GI more in primary care than ED settings. However, many LGBT patients seek ED care due to factors including uninsurance; therefore, the ED may represent an initial point of contact for SO/GI collection. Therefore, patient-centered approaches to collecting SO/GI are needed. Patients and providers differed in perceived risks and benefits to routine SO/GI collection. Provider training in LGBT health may address patients\u27 bias/discrimination concerns, and ultimately reduce LGBT health disparities

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 \u3c 0.001); there was no difference among reported importance for ED providers to know the patients\u27 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

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\u27 sexual orientation in health care settings. Currently, very few health care systems collect these data since patient preferences and health care professionals\u27 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\u27 and health care professionals\u27 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

Surgeons\u27 Perceptions Toward Providing Care for Diverse Patients: The Need for Cultural Dexterity Training

OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand the experiences of surgical residents and faculty with treating culturally diverse patients, and identify recommendations for establishing and implementing structured cultural competency training. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Cultural competency training for medical professionals could reduce healthcare disparities, yet is currently not a standard part of surgical residency training. Few studies have explored the perspectives of surgical residents and faculty on the skills needed to provide cross-cultural care. STUDY DESIGN: A purposeful sample of surgical residents and faculty from 4 academic institutions was recruited for semistructured qualitative interviews. We developed an in-depth interview guide and performed interviews to thematic saturation. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: We interviewed 16 attending surgeons and 15 surgical residents. Participant demographics were: male (51.6%), White (58.1%), Black (9.7%), Asian (22.5%), and Hispanic (9.7%). Four main themes emerged from the data: 1) aspects of culture that can inform patient care; 2) specific cultural challenges related to surgical care, including informed consent, pain management, difficult diagnoses and refusal of treatment, emergency situations, and end-of-life issues; 3) need for culturally competent care in surgery to navigate cultural differences; 4) perceived challenges and facilitators to incorporating cultural competency into the current training paradigm. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons identified the need to provide better cross-cultural care and proposed tenets for training. Based on these findings, we suggest the development and dissemination of a cultural dexterity training program that will provide surgeons with specific knowledge and skills to care for patients from diverse sociocultural backgrounds

Setting a national agenda for surgical disparities research: Recommendations from the National Institutes of Health and American College of Surgeons Summit

Health care disparities (differential access, care, and outcomes owing to factors such as race/ethnicity) are widely established. Compared with other groups, African American individuals have an increased mortality risk across multiple surgical procedures. Gender, sexual orientation, age, and geographic disparities are also well documented. Further research is needed to mitigate these inequities. To do so, the American College of Surgeons and the National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Minority Health and Disparities convened a research summit to develop a national surgical disparities research agenda and funding priorities. Sixty leading researchers and clinicians gathered in May 2015 for a 2-day summit. First, literature on surgical disparities was presented within 5 themes: (1) clinician, (2) patient, (3) systemic/access, (4) clinical quality, and (5) postoperative care and rehabilitation-related factors. These themes were identified via an exhaustive preconference literature review and guided the summit and its interactive consensus-building exercises. After individual thematic presentations, attendees contributed research priorities for each theme. Suggestions were collated, refined, and prioritized during the latter half of the summit. Breakout sessions yielded 3 to 5 top research priorities by theme. Overall priorities, regardless of theme, included improving patient-clinician communication, fostering engagement and community outreach by using technology, improving care at facilities with a higher proportion of minority patients, evaluating the longer-term effect of acute intervention and rehabilitation support, and improving patient centeredness by identifying expectations for recovery. The National Institutes of Health and American College of Surgeons Summit on Surgical Disparities Research succeeded in identifying a comprehensive research agenda. Future research and funding priorities should prioritize patients\u27 care perspectives, workforce diversification and training, and systematic evaluation of health technologies to reduce surgical disparities