“I feel like I don't matter because of my status as a person”— A mixed-methods, cross-sectional study of emergency department care experiences among equity-deserving groups in Ontario, Canada

Author:

Walker Melanie,MacKenzie Meredith,Douglas Stuart L.,Collier Amanda,Pritchard Jodie,Hoffe Sharleen,Norman Patrick A.,Purkey Eva,Messenger David,Bartels Susan A.

Abstract

BackgroundEquity-deserving groups (EDGs) have increased emergency department (ED) use, and often report negative ED care. Past studies have largely been qualitative and suffer from methodological bias and lack of comparison groups, thereby limiting their identification of interventions to ensure equitable care among equity-deserving populations. This study sought to better understand ED care experiences among EDGs in our local setting.Materials and methodsWe conducted a community-engaged, mixed-methods cross-sectional study using sensemaking methodology at the Kingston Health Sciences Centre's ED and Urgent Care Centre (Ontario, Canada), as well as at community partner organizations. From June-August 2021, eligible participants were invited to complete a survey about an ED care experience within the previous 24 months. Multiple-choice questions collected demographic/ED visit information including self-identification with up to three EDGs (Indigenous; having a disability; experiencing mental health concerns; persons who use substances (PWUS); 2SLGBTQ+; people who experience homelessness (PWEH); a visible minority; or having experienced violence). We evaluated differences in overall ED care experiences by EDG self-identification using chi-squared tests. Quantitative analysis of survey questions disaggregated by EDG status, and a thematic analysis of participant experiences are presented.ResultsOverall, 1,973 unique participants completed the survey (949 controls and 994 EDGs) sharing 2,114 ED care experiences in total. Participants who identified as PWUS, having mental health concerns, 2SLGBTQ+, PWEH, or having a disability, reported more negative overall experiences (p < 0.001). Compared with controls, each of the eight EDGs were statistically more likely to report feelings of judgement/disrespect, that there was too little attention paid to their needs (p < 0.001), and that it was more important to be treated with kindness/respect than to receive the best possible care (p < 0.001). Thematic analysis supported quantitative findings and identified four themes: stigma/judgement, poor staff communication, lack of compassionate care, and patients feeling unsupported.DiscussionNegative ED care experiences were pervasive among EDGs including feelings of judgement/stigma and a perception that a better understanding of personal situation/identity/culture was needed to improve care. Qualitative findings identified the following future interventions: universal trauma-informed care, improved care for addiction/substance use, and improved access to mental health care resources.

Publisher

Frontiers Media SA

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3