Search

Previous studies documented racial and gender disparities in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement. The authors examined whether racial and gender disparities in ICD placement are due to underutilization or overutilization. Among 1,054 adults hospitalized from 2001 to 2004 with ventricular arrhythmias in a large academic hospital, the study found that 17% of patients had clinical indicators concordant with ICD placement criteria. Among those, Blacks were less likely than Whites to receive an ICD (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.24; 95% CI = 0.08-0.71). Among the 83% who were discordant with ICD placement criteria, Blacks (adjusted OR = 0.30; 95% CI = 0.18-0.52) and Hispanics (adjusted OR = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.10-0.57) were less likely than Whites, and women less likely than men, to receive an ICD (adjusted OR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.34-0.67). In this cohort, these differences appear related to overutilization among men and Whites who are discordant with ICD placement criteria in addition to underutilization among Blacks concordant with placement criteria.

Background: The Health Resources and Services Administration Health Disparities Collaboratives (HDCs) were developed to improve care for chronic medical conditions in community health centers (CHCs)., Methods: We examined whether HDCs reduced disparities in quality by race/ethnicity or insurance status in CHCs nationally. We performed a controlled preintervention/postintervention study of 44 CHCs participating in HDCs for asthma, diabetes mellitus, or hypertension and 20 "external" control CHCs that had not participated. Each intervention center also served as an "internal" control for another condition. For each condition, we created an overall quality score, defined disparities in care as the differences in care between racial/ethnic groups and insurance groups, and examined changes in disparity through a series of hierarchical models using a 3-way interaction term among period, patient characteristics of interest, and treatment group., Results: Overall, HDCs had little effect on disparities in composite measures for asthma, diabetes, and hypertension. For asthma care, collaborative centers had a baseline Hispanic-white disparity of 6.5%, which changed to a higher quality of recommended care for Hispanic patients over white patients by 0.8%, resulting in a significantly reduced Hispanic-white disparity compared with the change in disparity seen in external controls (P = .04). There were no other improvements in racial/ethnic or insurance disparities for any other conditions., Conclusions: Although HDCs are known to improve quality of care in CHCs, they had minimal effect on racial/ethnic and insurance disparities. In addition to targeting improvement in overall quality, future initiatives should include activities aimed at disparity reduction as an outcome.

Background: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial to examine the effectiveness of computerized decision support (CDS) designed to improve hypertension care and outcomes in a racially diverse sample of primary care patients., Methods: We randomized 2,027 adult patients receiving hypertension care in 14 primary care practices to either 18 months of their physicians receiving CDS for each hypertensive patient or to usual care without computerized support for the control group. We assessed prescribing of guideline-recommended drug therapy and levels of blood pressure control for patients in each group and examined if the effects of the intervention differed by patients' race/ethnicity using interaction terms., Measurements and Main Results: Rates of blood pressure control were 42% at baseline and 46% at the outcome visit with no significant differences between groups. After adjustment for patients' demographic and clinical characteristics, number of prior visits, and levels of baseline blood pressure control, there were no differences between intervention groups in the odds of outcome blood pressure control. The use of CDS to providers significantly improved Joint National Committee (JNC) guideline adherent medication prescribing compared to usual care (7% versus 5%, P < 0.001); the effects of the intervention remained after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio [OR] 1.39 [CI, 1.13-1.72]) and the effects of the intervention did not differ by patients' race and ethnicity., Conclusions: CDS improved appropriate medication prescribing with no improvement in disparities in care and overall blood pressure control. Future work focusing on improvement of these interventions and the study of other practical interventions to reduce disparities in hypertension-related outcomes is needed.