Racial and ethnic differences in health care utilization and outcomes among ulcerative colitis patients in an integrated health-care organization.

BACKGROUND: Current knowledge of racial disparities in healthcare utilization and disease outcomes for ulcerative colitis (UC) is limited. We sought to investigate these differences among Caucasian, African American, Asian, and Hispanic patients with ulcerative colitis in Kaiser Permanente, a large integrated health-care system in Northern California. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used computerized clinical data from 5,196 Caucasians, 387 African-Americans, 550 Asians, and 801 Hispanics with prevalent UC identified between 1996 and 2007. Healthcare utilization and outcomes were compared at one and five-year follow-up by use of multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Compared with whites, the male-to-female ratio differed for African-Americans (0.68 vs. 0.91, p < 0.01) and Asians (1.3 vs. 0.91, p < 0.01). Asians had fewer co-morbid conditions (p < 0.01) than whites, whereas more African-Americans had hypertension and asthma (p < 0.01). Use of immunomodulators did not differ significantly among race and/or ethnic groups. Among Asians, 5-ASA use was highest (p < 0.05) and the incidence of surgery was lowest (p < 0.01). Prolonged steroid exposure was more common among Hispanics (p < 0.05 at 1-year) who also had more UC-related surgery (p < 0.01 at 5-year) and hospitalization (<0.05 at 5-year), although these differences were not significant in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In this population of UC patients with good access to care, overall health-care utilization patterns and clinical outcomes were similar across races and ethnicity. Asians may have milder disease than other races whereas Hispanics had a trend toward more aggressive disease, although the differences we observed were modest. These differences may be related to biological factors or different treatment preferences.

Comparative effectiveness topics from a large, integrated delivery system.

OBJECTIVE: To identify high-priority comparative effectiveness questions directly relevant to care delivery in a large, US integrated health care system. METHODS: In 2010, a total of 792 clinical and operational leaders in Kaiser Permanente were sent an electronic survey requesting nominations of comparative effectiveness research questions; most recipients (83%) had direct clinical roles. Nominated questions were divided into 18 surveys of related topics that included 9 to 23 questions for prioritization. The next year, 648 recipients were electronically sent 1 of the 18 surveys to prioritize nominated questions. Surveys were assigned to recipients on the basis of their nominations or specialty. High-priority questions were identified by comparing the frequency a question was selected to an "expected" frequency, calculated to account for the varying number of questions and respondents across prioritization surveys. High-priority questions were those selected more frequently than expected. RESULTS: More than 320 research questions were nominated from 181 individuals. Questions most frequently addressed cardiovascular and peripheral vascular disease; obesity, diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolic disorders; or service delivery and systems-level questions. Ninety-five high-priority research questions were identified, encompassing a wide range of health questions that ranged from prevention and screening to treatment and quality of life. Many were complex questions from a systems perspective regarding how to deliver the best care. CONCLUSIONS: The 95 questions identified and prioritized by leaders on the front lines of health care delivery may inform the national discussion regarding comparative effectiveness research. Additionally, our experience provides insight in engaging real-world stakeholders in setting a health care research agenda.

Gastroenterologists' attitudes and self-reported practices regarding inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: The purpose was to assess organization-, physician-, and patient-based aspects of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) practice variation within an integrated care delivery system and the extent to which physicians are interested in adopting a chronic care model and/or nurse assistance to manage IBD patients. METHODS: As part of an observational cohort study to understand variation in IBD care and outcomes, we conducted semistructured, open-ended interviews with 17 gastroenterologists and 1 gastroenterology registered nurse at 6 clinics in an integrated care delivery system. Interviews were taperecorded and transcribed. We coded and analyzed transcripts using standard qualitative methods. RESULTS: Physicians reported a range of attitudes and practices regarding IBD. Analysis showed differences in 3 domains and 8 subdomains: 1) patient education and choices, including health education and patient use of complementary and alternative medicine; 2) decisions about diagnosis and treatment, including practice guidelines, conferring with colleagues, using infliximab, and medical hospitalization; and 3) organizational aspects of care, including primary care involvement with IBD and MD attitudes toward ancillary support. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized algorithms on care for IBD patients do not exist, but opportunities may exist to improve IBD care by: having initial work-ups and management of patients in remission in primary care; creating and maintaining opportunities for gastroenterologists to confer with colleagues and acknowledged local experts; and having nurse coordination for medications and labs and/or some type of specialty IBD clinic for high-need patients. This research highlights the need for more directed comparative efficacy and effectiveness trials that will serve to define preferred treatment strategies.

Pre-registration nursing students' experience of caring for cancer patients.

The preparation of nurses caring for cancer patients remains a topical subject. The recent emphasis on the preparation of an effective and informed workforce for cancer care at all nursing levels is significant, particularly as the majority of previous studies have traditionally focused on post-registration preparation of qualified nurses. Currently, there is limited information on the preparation of pre-registered nursing students and little is known about the experiences of these students, especially during their initial exposure to cancer patients. Recently, changes have also been made to the pre-registration nursing programmes in the UK in line with national recommendations leading to much earlier exposures to patient care in practice. This study provides information about nursing students' experiences of caring for cancer patients. Using self-report questionnaires each comprising of 21 Likert scale items, a survey was conducted on a total of 134 students (response rate: 88%) enrolled on the common foundation programme at the end of the first year of their undergraduate nursing programme. Data collected included information about the types of clinical settings where students were exposed to cancer patients, perceptions of their experiences with cancer patients and aspects of educational and clinical inputs perceived as helpful in preparing them to care for cancer patients. Additional insight into the students' experience was further obtained from semi-structured interviews conducted from a total of nine students drawn from the three categories of experiences they identified: positive, non-positive and mixed. The findings and implications for the preparation of pre-registration nursing students in caring for cancer patients were discussed in relation to the theoretical input, clinical support and the use of reflection in practice.

Perceptions of risk of cervical cancer and attitudes towards cervical screening: a comparison of smokers and non-smokers.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare smokers' and non-smokers' perceptions of risks of cervical cancer and attitudes towards cervical screening. METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out in 722 women aged between 20 and 64 years. RESULTS: While smokers perceived their relative risk of heart disease to be greater than that of non-smokers, they did not perceive their risks of cervical cancer to be greater. Smokers held less positive attitudes towards cervical screening than did non-smokers. Smokers and non-smokers did not differ in their intentions to attend for cervical screening: for both groups, intentions were very high. Using logistic regression analysis, both attitudes towards cervical screening [odds ratio (OR) 1.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-2.2] and perceived relative risk of developing cervical cancer (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.0-2.1) were predictive of intentions to attend for screening, as well as educational level (OR 3.8; 95% CI 1.2-11.3) and marital status (OR 0.6; 95% CI 0.3-0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Smokers seem unaware of their increased risks of cervical cancer and hence the increased value for them of regular smears. Evaluations are needed to determine the effectiveness of interventions delivered in the context of cervical screening aimed at (i) raising smokers' awareness of their increased risk of cervical cancer and (ii) stopping smoking.