Emergency department care experiences among members of equity-deserving groups: quantitative results from a cross-sectional mixed methods study

Author:

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

Abstract

Abstract Background Emergency departments (EDs) serve an integral role in healthcare, particularly for vulnerable populations. However, marginalized groups often report negative ED experiences, including stigmatizing attitudes and behaviours. We engaged with historically marginalized patients to better understand their ED care experiences. Method Participants were invited to complete an anonymous mixed-methods survey about a previous ED experience. We analysed quantitative data including controls and equity-deserving groups (EDGs) - those who self-identified as: (a) Indigenous; (b) having a disability; (c) experiencing mental health issues; (d) a person who uses substances; (e) a sexual and gender minority; (f) a visible minority; (g) experiencing violence; and/or (h) facing homelessness - to identify differences in their perspectives. Differences between EDGs and controls were calculated with chi squared tests, geometric means with confidence ellipses, and the Kruskal-Wallis H test. Results We collected a total of 2114 surveys from 1973 unique participants, 949 controls and 994 who identified as equity-deserving. Members of EDGs were more likely to attribute negative feelings to their ED experience (p < 0.001), to indicate that their identity impacted the care received (p < 0.001), and that they felt disrespected and/or judged while in the ED (p < 0.001). Members of EDGs were also more likely to indicate that they had little control over healthcare decisions (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). Conclusion Members of EDGs were more likely to report negative ED care experiences. Equity-deserving individuals felt judged and disrespected by ED staff and felt disempowered to make decisions about their care. Next steps will include contextualizing findings using participants’ qualitative data and identifying how to improve ED care experiences among EDGs to make it more inclusive and better able to meet their healthcare needs.

Funder

Queen’s University Catalyst Fund

Clinical Teachers’ Association of Queen’s University

Queen’s University Fund for Scholarly Research and Creative Work and Professional Development

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Emergency Medicine

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