Search

People who are structurally disadvantaged and marginalized often report poor health care experiences, such as inequitable treatment, due to intersecting forms of stigma and discrimination. There are many measures of patient experiences of care, however, few are designed to measure equity-oriented health care. In alignment with ongoing calls to integrate actions in support of health equity, we report on the development and testing of patient-reported experience measures that explicitly use a health equity and intersectional lens. Our analysis focuses on two different scales: the Equity-Oriented Health Care Scale—Ongoing, which was evaluated in primary health care settings where patients have an ongoing relationship with providers over time, and the Equity-Oriented Health Care Scale—Episodic, which was tested in an emergency department where care is provided on an episodic basis. Item Response Theory was used to develop and refine the scales. The psychometric properties of each scale were also evaluated. The Equity-Oriented Health Care Scale—Ongoing was first tested with a cohort of 567 patients. The Equity-Oriented Health Care Scale—Episodic was subsequently tested in an emergency department setting with 284 patients. Results of the Item Response Theory analysis for each scale yielded a brief index that captured the level of equity-oriented care when care is ongoing (12 items) or episodic (9 items). Both scales showed evidence of internal consistency and concurrent validity, based on a high correlation with quality of care. They are brief, easy-to-administer patient-reported experience measures that can support organizations to monitor quality of care. Their availability enhances the possibility of measuring equity-oriented health care in diverse contexts and can provide nuanced understandings of quality of care through an intersectional and equity lens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this study was to develop a core set of indicators that could be used for measuring and monitoring the performance of primary health care organizations' capacity and strategies for enhancing equity-oriented care. Methods: Indicators were constructed based on a review of the literature and a thematic analysis of interview data with patients and staff (n = 114) using procedures for qualitatively derived data. We used a modified Delphi process where the indicators were circulated to staff at the Health Centers who served as participants (n = 63) over two rounds. Indicators were considered part of a priority set of health equity indicators if they received an overall importance rating of>8.0, on a scale of 1–9, where a higher score meant more importance. Results: Seventeen indicators make up the priority set. Items were eliminated because they were rated as low importance (<8.0) in both rounds and were either redundant or more than one participant commented that taking action on the indicator was highly unlikely. In order to achieve health care equity, performance at the organizational level is as important as assessing the performance of staff. Two of the highest rated “treatment” or processes of care indicators reflects the need for culturally safe and trauma and violence-informed care. There are four indicators that can be used to measure outcomes which can be directly attributable to equity responsive primary health care. Discussion: These indicators and subsequent development of items can be used to measure equity in the domains of treatment and outcomes. These areas represent targets for higher performance in relation to equity for organizations (e.g., funding allocations to ongoing training in equity-oriented care provision) and providers (e.g., reflexive practice, skill in working with the health effects of trauma). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]