Search

The existence of pronounced differences in health outcomes between US populations is a problem of moral significance and public health urgency. Pursuing research on genetic contributors to such disparities, despite striking data on the fundamental role of social factors, has been controversial. Still, advances in genomic science are providing an understanding of disease biology at a level of precision not previously possible. The potential for genomic strategies to help in addressing population-level disparities therefore needs to be carefully evaluated. Using 3 examples from current research, we argue that the best way to maximize the benefits of population-based genomic investigations, and mitigate potential harms, is to direct research away from the identification of genetic causes of disparities and instead focus on applying genomic methodologies to the development of clinical and public health tools with the potential to ameliorate healthcare inequities, direct population-level health interventions or inform public policy. Such a transformation will require close collaboration between transdisciplinary teams and community members as well as a reorientation of current research objectives to better align genomic discovery efforts with public health priorities and well-recognized barriers to fair health care delivery.

Introduction Current NHS guidelines require patients with suspected breast cancer to be seen urgently at a specialist breast clinic. The aim of this study was to assess referral patterns and clinical findings of patients referred to a specialist breast clinic. Materials and Methods A prospective database was maintained for consecutive patients referred. Symptoms and clinical findings in primary and secondary care were recorded. Correlation with final diagnoses was made. Tertiary referral patients were excluded. Results 1098 patients attended a specialist breast clinic over six months. 588 (54%) were referred as urgent, 285 (26%) routinely and 225 (20%) were unspecified. 492 (45%) patients were referred with the incorrect referral priority. 42 patients were unexamined in primary care. Examination findings in primary and secondary care correlated in only 487 (46%) patients. Examination in primary care when compared with secondary care was highly sensitive for detecting breast lumps, but specificity was low. 86 patients (8%) were diagnosed with breast cancer, 72 (84%) were referred urgently, 6 (7%) routinely and 8 (9%) as unspecified priority. Regardless of the clinical expertise of the referrer, sensitivity and specificity of the two-week guidelines for cancer are low. Conclusions Examination findings in primary and secondary care correlate in only 46% of referrals. Additionally, 55% of referrals were of the correct priority. The two-week rule guidelines have poor sensitivity and specificity for cancer. The safest and fairest policy would be to abandon the concept of urgent referral criteria and see all patients in a timely fashion. Alternatively, simplifying the referral criteria would improve sensitivity and specificity for cancer without leading to increased waiting times.

Objectives—To describe the relationship between patient satisfaction with out of hours care provided by deputising and practice doctors in four urban areas in England and characteristics of the service provided and patients, the care given, and health outcomes. Setting—Fourteen general practices in four urban areas in England. Participants—People who requested out of hours care. Design—Analysis of data from a study of out of hours care. Patients were interviewed within 5 days of their request for out of hours care. Data on the service provided were obtained from medical records and all other data were collected at interview. Satisfaction was measured using a valid reliable instrument. Results—2152 patients were recruited to the study and 1466 were interviewed. Satisfaction data were available on 1402 patients. “Overall satisfaction” was associated with age, doctor type, lack of access to a car at the time of the request, and health outcome. The relationships between satisfaction subscales and patient characteristics (age, sex, ethnicity, and access to a car at the time of the request), service characteristics (doctor type and delay between the request and visit), whether a prescription was given, and health outcome were variable. If an expected home visit was not received, “overall satisfaction” and satisfaction with “communication and management”, “doctor’s attitude”, and “initial contact person” were reduced. Conclusion—Patient satisfaction is dependent on many factors. Mismatch between patient expectation and the service received is related to decreased satisfaction. This may increase as general practitioners delegate more out of hours care to cooperatives and deputising services. (Quality in Health Care 2001;10:23‐28)

Introduction There is no consensus as to the best method of assessing vision in children with neurological disability. There are a variety of tests and approaches that can be used. It is important to look at models of assessment that identify the visual diagnosis and provide appropriate feedback and explanation to parents, carers and educational professionals. Methods This study reports on the results of comprehensive visual assessments of fifty children with neurological disability over a three year period. It focuses on the feedback from families and professionals after the assessment report was disseminated. Results The majority of families and professionals strongly agreed that a specialist assessment was needed in this population. Parents and professionals particularly valued the written report which provided guidance on appropriate visual material including advice relevant to education. Conclusion This study highlights the importance of specialist teams engaging with local child development services and indicates how partnership working can potentially be emotionally supportive as well as developmentally beneficial.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to describe the process used to decide which patients are admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at a hospital with special focus on access for neurosurgery patients, and evaluate it using “accountability for reasonableness”. Methods: Qualitative case study methodology was used. Data were collected from documents, interviews with key informants, and observations. The data were subjected to thematic analysis and evaluated using the four conditions of “accountability for reasonableness” (relevance, publicity, appeals, enforcement) to identify good practices and opportunities for improvement. Results: ICU admissions were based on the referring physician’s assessment of the medical need of the patient for an ICU bed. Non-medical criteria (for example, family wishes) also influenced admission decisions. Although there was an ICU bed allocation policy, patient need always superceded the bed allocation policy. ICU admission guidelines were not used. Admission decisions and reasons were disseminated to the ICU charge nurse, the bed coordinator, the ICU resident, the intensivist, and the requesting physician/surgeon by word of mouth and by written documentation in the patient’s chart, but not to the patient or family. Appeals occurred informally, through negotiations between clinicians. Enforcement of relevance, publicity, and appeals was felt to be either non-existent or deficient. Conclusions: Conducting a case study of priority setting decisions for patients requiring ICU beds, with a special focus on neurosurgical patients, and applying the ethical framework “accountability for reasonableness” can help critical care units improve the fairness of their priority setting.

Objectives: To establish the association between measures of social deprivation, mechanisms of injury, patterns of care, and outcome following closed head injury. Methods: All Scottish adult A&E attendees with closed head injury (AIS Head ≥3) between July 1996 and December 2000 were studied. Results: Trauma was more common in individuals from more deprived areas. Within the trauma population head injury was relatively more common in patients from deprived areas; these individuals were more likely to sustain an isolated head injury as a result of an assault. Admission GCS was higher and normal physiology (as assessed by the RTS) was more common in individuals from more deprived areas. Recorded co-morbidity was similar between the two groups with the exception of a history of alcohol or substance abuse which was more common among patients from more deprived areas. Similar proportions of patients from more deprived and less deprived areas were transferred to the Regional Neurosurgical Centre. For patients who were transferred directly from A&E, time to neurosurgical theatre was similar for both groups. Length of hospital and ITU stay was less in patients from more deprived areas. After adjusting for known predictors of outcome using logistic regression analysis, there was no significant difference in mortality between patients from more deprived and less deprived areas. Conclusions: Residing in a more deprived area is not associated with increased mortality from head injury among adults in Scotland. It is associated with different patterns of injury and a different process of care following presentation to hospital.

Evidence based guidelines are regarded as an appropriate basis for providing effective health care, but few guidelines incorporate the views of users such as carers.To develop guidelines to assist primary health care teams (PHCTs) in their work with carers within South Asian communities.The guidelines were drawn up by a development group consisting of members of teams in areas with South Asian communities (Leicester and Bradford). The teams were invited to make their recommendations based on a systematic review of literature on minority ethnic carers and the findings of a study of the needs and experiences of local South Asian carers. A grading system was devised to enable the teams and a group of expert peer reviewers to assess the quality of evidence in support of each recommendation.The teams agreed seven recommendations, graded according to available evidence and strength of opinion. External peer review supported the PHCTs' interpretation of evidence and their recommendations. The recommendations included consideration of communication and information for carers, coordination of care within teams, and recognition by team members of the roles of carers and their cultural and religious beliefs.There are particular steps that PHCTs can take to improve their support of South Asian carers. It is possible to develop guidelines that take users' views into account and incorporate evidence from qualitative studies.