Key Points Question Were the Liaison Committee on Medical Education 2009 diversity accreditation guidelines associated with decreased underrepresentation of minorities in medicine? Findings In this cross-sectional study of self-reported race/ethnicity of US medical school matriculants from 2002 to 2017, numbers and proportions of black, Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaska Native medical school matriculants increased, but at a rate slower than their age-matched counterparts in the US population, resulting in increased underrepresentation. Meaning This study suggests that while absolute numbers of physicians from minority racial/ethnic groups have increased over time, the physician workforce still does not represent the demographic characteristics of the US population.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: Prior research suggests that health care providers are susceptible to implicit biases, specifically prowhite biases, and that these may contribute to health care disparities by influencing physician behavior. Despite these findings, implicit bias training is not currently embedded into emergency medicine (EM) residency training and few studies exist that evaluate the effectiveness of implicit bias training on awareness during residency conference. We sought to conduct a mixed-methods program evaluation of a formalized educational intervention targeted on the topic of implicit bias. Methods:We used a design thinking framework to develop a curricular intervention. The intervention consisted of taking the Harvard Implicit Association Test (IAT) on race to introduce the concept of implicit bias, followed by a facilitated discussion to explore participant's perceptions on whether implicit bias may lead to variations in care. The facilitated discussion was audio recorded, transcribed, and coded for emerging themes. An online survey assessed participant awareness of these topics before and after the intervention and was analyzed using paired t-tests. Results: After the intervention, participant's awareness of their individual implicit biases increased by 33.3%(p = 0.003) and their awareness of how their IAT results influences how they deliver care to patients increased by 9.1% (p = 0.03). Emerging themes included skepticism of the implicit bias test results with the desire to have "neutral" results, acknowledgment that pattern recognition may lead to "blind spots" in care, recognition that bias exists on a personal and systemic level, and interest in regular educational interventions to address implicit bias.Conclusions: This novel educational intervention on implicit bias resulted in improvement in participants' awareness of their implicit biases and how it may affect their patient care. Our intervention can serve as a model for other residency programs to develop and implement an intervention to create awareness of implicit bias and its potential impact on patient care.

IMPORTANCE An increasing diversity of children's health coverage options under the US Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, together with uncertainty regarding reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) beyond 2017, merits renewed attention on the quality of these options for children. OBJECTIVE To compare health care access, quality, and cost outcomes by insurance type (Medicaid, CHIP, private, and uninsured) for children in households with low to moderate incomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A repeated cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data from the 2003, 2007, and 2011-2012 US National Surveys of Children's Health, comprising 80 655 children 17 years or younger, weighted to 67 million children nationally, with household incomes between 100% and 300% of the federal poverty level. Multivariable logistic regression models compared caregiver-reported outcomes across insurance types. Analysis was conducted between July 14, 2014, and May 6, 2015. EXPOSURES Insurance type was ascertained using a caregiver-reported measure of insurance status and each household's poverty status (percentage of the federal poverty level). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Caregiver-reported outcomes related to access to primary and specialty care, unmet needs, out-of-pocket costs, care coordination, and satisfaction with care. RESULTS Among the 80 655 children, 51 123 (57.3%) had private insurance, 11 853 (13.6%) had Medicaid, 9554 (18.4%) had CHIP, and 8125 (10.8%) were uninsured. In a multivariable logistic regression model (with results reported as adjusted probabilities [95% CIs]), children insured by Medicaid and CHIP were significantly more likely to receive a preventive medical (Medicaid, 88% [86%-89%]; P < .01; CHIP, 88% [87%-89%]; P < .01) and dental (Medicaid, 80% [78%-81%]; P < .01; CHIP, 77% [76%-79%]; P < .01) visits than were privately insured children (medical, 83% [82%-84%]; dental, 73% [72%-74%]). Children with all insurance types experienced challenges in access to specialty care, with caregivers of children insured by CHIP reporting the highest rates of difficulty accessing specialty care (28% [24%-32%]), problems obtaining a referral (23% [18%-29%]), and frustration obtaining health care services (26% [23%-28%]). These challenges were also magnified for privately insured children with special health care needs, whose caregivers reported significantly greater problems accessing specialty care (29% [26%-33%]) and frustration obtaining health care services (36% [32%-41%]) than did caregivers of children insured by Medicaid, and a lower likelihood of insurance always meeting the child's needs (63% [60%-67%]) than children insured by Medicaid or CHIP. Caregivers of privately insured children were also significantly more likely to experience out-of-pocket costs (77% [75%-78%]) than were caregivers of children insured by Medicaid (26% [23%-28%]; P < .01) or CHIP (38% [35%-40%]; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This examination of caregiver experiences across insurance types revealed...

Key Points Question What factors matter for creating inclusive clinical and learning environments within health care organizations? Findings This qualitative analysis identifies 6 modifiable contributors to an inclusive culture and the implications of these factors on the well-being and performance of members of the health care workforce. Meaning Understanding these factors provides health care systems a way to improve inclusivity and facilitate the retention of a diverse health professional student body and health care workforce to ultimately improve care delivery.

Background The patient-centered medical home model has gained support, but the impact of this model on the quality and equity of care merits further evaluation. Objective To determine if patient-centered medical homes are associated with improved quality and equity in pediatric primary care. Research Design Using the 2007/2008 National Survey of Children’s Health, a nationally representative survey of parents/guardians of children (age 0–17), we evaluated the association of patient-centered medical homes with ten quality of care measures using multivariable regression models, adjusting for demographic and socioeconomic covariates. For quality indicators that were significantly associated with medical homes, we determined if this association differed by race/ethnicity. Results Compared to children without medical homes, those withmedical homes had significantly better adjusted rates for six of ten quality measures (all p≤0.02) such as obtaining a developmental history (adjusted rates % (SE): 41.7 (1.3) vs. 52.0 (1.1), p<0.001). Having a medical home was associated with better adjusted rates of receiving a developmental history exam for both white and black children, but the disparity between these groups was not significantly narrowed (difference in risk differences (SE): 0.9 (4.3) for Whites vs. Blacks; p=0.83). Conclusions Our results underscore the benefits of the medical home model for children while highlighting areas for improvement, such as narrowing disparities. Our findings also emphasize the key role of patient experience measures in the evaluation of medical homes.

BACKGROUND: What patients perceive and experience within a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is an understudied area, and to date, the patient perspective has not been an integral component of existing PCMH measurement standards. However, upcoming guidelines necessitate the use of patient-reported experiences and satisfaction in evaluations of practice and provider performance. OBJECTIVE: To characterize patients' experiences with care after PCMH adoption and their understanding and perceptions of the PCMH model and its key components, and to compare responses by degree of practice-level PCMH adoption and patient race/ethnicity. DESIGN: Qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with diabetes and/or hypertension (n=48). APPROACH: We surveyed and ranked all PCMH adult primary care practices affiliated with one academic medical center with at least three providers (n=23), using an instrument quantifying the degree of PCMH adoption. We purposively sampled minority and non-minority patients from the four highest-ranked and four lowest-ranked PCMH-adopting practices to determine whether responses varied by degree of PCMH adoption or patient race/ethnicity. We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with patients about their experiences with care and their perceptions and understanding of key PCMH domains. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and imported into NVivo 10 for coding and analysis, using a modified grounded theory approach. KEY RESULTS: We found that patients uniformly lacked awareness of the PCMH concept, and the vast majority perceived no PCMH-related structural changes, regardless of the degree of practice-reported PCMH adoption or the patient's race/ethnicity. Despite this lack of awareness, patients overwhelmingly reported positive relationships with their provider and positive overall experiences. CONCLUSIONS: As we continue to redesign primary care delivery with an emphasis on patient experience measures as performance metrics, we need to better understand what, if any, aspects of practice structure relate to patient experience and satisfaction with care.