Blackface, Implicit Bias, and the Informal Curriculum: Shaping the Healthcare Workforce, and Improving Health

Implicit bias assessment by career stage in medical education training: a narrative review

Implicit biases involve associations outside conscious awareness that lead to a negative evaluation of a person based on individual characteristics. Early evaluation of implicit bias in medical training can prevent long-term adverse health outcomes related to racial bias. However, to our knowledge, no present studies examine the sequential assessment of implicit bias through the different stages of medical training. The objective of this narrative review is to examine the breadth of existing publications that assess implicit bias at the current levels of medical training, pre-medical, graduate, and postgraduate. Protocol for this study was drafted using the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Reviews (SANRA). Keyword literature search on peer-reviewed databases Google Scholar, PubMed, Ebsco, ScienceDirect, and MedEd Portal from January 1, 2017, to March 1, 2022, was used to identify applicable research articles. The online database search identified 1,512 articles. Full screening resulted in 75 papers meeting the inclusion criteria. Over 50% of extracted papers (74%) were published between 2019 and 2021 and investigated implicit bias at the post-graduate level (43%), followed by the graduate level (34%), and pre-medical level (9.4%). Fourteen percent were classified as mixed. Studies at the medical and medical graduate level identified an implicit preference towards white, male, non-LGBTQIA+, thin, patients. Study findings highlight notable gaps within the sequential assessment of implicit bias, specifically at the pre-medical training level. Longitudinal epidemiological research is needed to examine the long-term effect of implicit biases on existing healthcare disparities.

Sexual Orientation and Racial Bias in Relation to Medical Specialty

Physician explicit and implicit biases involving race and sexual orientation (SO) affect patient and provider experiences in healthcare settings. An anonymous survey was disseminated nationally to graduating medical students, residents, and practicing physicians to evaluate SO and racial biases across medical specialties. SO explicit and implicit bias were measured with the Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale, short form (ATLG-S) and Gay-Straight Implicit Association Test (IAT). Racial explicit and implicit bias were measured with the Quick Discrimination Index (QDI) and the Black-White IAT. Medical specialty was associated with racial explicit bias and specialty prestige with Black-White IAT score. Medical specialty and specialty prestige were not associated with SO bias. Female sex, sexual and gender minority (SGM) identity, and decreased religiosity were associated with reduced SO and racial bias. Provider race was associated with racial implicit and explicit bias.

The Diversity Compass: a clinical ethics support instrument for dialogues on diversity in healthcare organizations

BACKGROUND

Increasing social pluralism adds to the already existing variety of heterogeneous moral perspectives on good care, health, and quality of life. Pluralism in social identities is also connected to health and care disparities for minoritized patient (i.e. care receiver) populations, and to specific diversity-related moral challenges of healthcare professionals and organizations that aim to deliver diversity-responsive care in an inclusive work environment. Clinical ethics support (CES) services and instruments may help with adequately responding to these diversity-related moral challenges. However, although various CES instruments exist to support healthcare professionals with dealing well with morally challenging situations in healthcare, current tools do not address challenges specifically related to moral pluralism and intersectional aspects of diversity and social justice issues. This article describes the content and developmental process of a novel CES instrument called the Diversity Compass. This instrument was designed with and for healthcare professionals to dialogically address and reflect on moral challenges related to intersectional aspects of diversity and social justice issues that they experience in daily practice.

METHODS

We used a participatory development design to develop the Diversity Compass at a large long-term care organization in a major city in the Netherlands. Over a period of thirteen months, we conducted seven focus groups with healthcare professionals and peer-experts, carried out five expert interviews, and facilitated four meetings with a community of practice consisting of various healthcare professionals who developed and tested preliminary versions of the instrument throughout three cycles of iterative co-creation.

RESULTS

The Diversity Compass is a practical, dialogical CES instrument that is designed as a small booklet and includes an eight-step deliberation method, as well as a guideline with seven recommendations to support professionals with engaging in dialogue when they are confronted with diversity-related moral challenges. The seven recommendations are key components in working toward creating an inclusive and safe space for dialogue to occur.

CONCLUSIONS

The Diversity Compass seeks to support healthcare professionals and organizations in their efforts to facilitate awareness, moral learning and joint reflection on moral challenges related to diversity and social justice issues. It is the first dialogical CES instrument that specifically acknowledges the role of social location in shaping moral perspectives or experiences with systemic injustices. However, to make healthcare more just, an instrument like the Diversity Compass is not enough on its own. In addition to the Diversity Compass, a systemic and structural approach to social justice issues in healthcare organizations is needed in order to foster a more inclusive, safe and diversity-responsive care and work environment in health care organizations.

Evidence, expertise, and patient/family preferences to maximize health for older adults with implications for evidence-based practice

BACKGROUND

As Americans live longer and with chronic conditions, the healthcare system, researchers, faculty, practicing providers, patients, and families must adapt to changing societal needs and goals.

AIMS

The aim of this commentary was to offer recommendations that align with the six vital directions to improve the health care and quality of life for older Americans.

METHODS

This article expands upon the six vital directions from an evidence-based practice (EBP) perspective that values the three legs of the EBP stool: (1) research evidence, (2) clinician expertise, and (3) patient preferences, values, and circumstances.

RESULTS

The recommendations reflect the scientific literature, our expertise in EBP and research, our nursing roles and expertise, and our experiences in the care of our older parents. By sharing our experiences as nurse scientists and daughters, we offer insight to raise the healthcare bar for older adults through EBP and meaningful, person-centered care.

LINKING ACTION TO EVIDENCE

Vital directions for improving the health care and quality of life for older Americans include promoting interprofessional education to create an adequately prepared workforce; researching and implementing pathways to minimize the social determinants of health for older adults; disseminating findings that remediate older adult health disparities; innovating approaches for managing chronic health conditions at home; and studying and implementing approaches for allocating resources for end-of-life care that are satisfying for the patients, their family, and clinicians.

Discrimination and Medical Mistrust in a Racially and Ethnically Diverse Sample of California Adults

PURPOSE

Although we know that racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to have mistrust in the health care system, very limited knowledge exists on correlates of such medical mistrust among this population. In this study, we explored correlates of medical mistrust in a representative sample of adults.

METHODS

We analyzed cross-sectional study data from the Survey of California Adults on Serious Illness and End-of-Life 2019. We ascertained race/ethnicity, health status, perceived discrimination, demographics, socioeconomic factors, and medical mistrust. For data analysis, we used multinomial logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Analyses were based on 704 non-Hispanic Black adults, 711 Hispanic adults, and 913 non-Hispanic White adults. Racial/ethnic background was significantly associated with the level of medical mistrust. Adjusting for all covariates, odds of reporting medical mistrust were 73% higher (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.73; 95% CI, 1.15-2.61, P <.01) and 49% higher (aOR = 1.49; 95% CI, 1.02-2.17, P <.05) for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic adults when compared with non-Hispanic White adults, respectively. Perceived discrimination was also associated with higher odds of medical mistrust. Indicating perceived discrimination due to income and insurance was associated with 98% higher odds of medical mistrust (aOR = 1.98; 95% CI, 1.71-2.29, P <.001). Similarly, the experience of discrimination due to racial/ethnic background and language was associated with a 25% increase in the odds of medical mistrust (aOR = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43; P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Perceived discrimination is correlated with medical mistrust. If this association is causal, that is, if perceived discrimination causes medical mistrust, then decreasing such discrimination may improve trust in medical clinicians and reduce disparities in health outcomes. Addressing discrimination in health care settings is appropriate for many reasons related to social justice. More longitudinal research is needed to understand how complex societal, economic, psychological, and historical factors contribute to medical mistrust. This type of research may in turn inform the design of multilevel community- and theory-based training models to increase the structural competency of health care clinicians so as to reduce medical mistrust.