Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundEmerging evidence has shown racial and ethnic disparities in rates of harm for hospitalised children. Previous work has also demonstrated how highly heterogeneous approaches to collection of race and ethnicity data pose challenges to population-level analyses. This work aims to both create an approach to aggregating safety data from multiple hospitals by race and ethnicity and apply the approach to the examination of potential disparities in high-frequency harm conditions.MethodsIn this cross-sectional, multicentre study, a cohort of hospitals from the Solutions for Patient Safety network with varying race and ethnicity data collection systems submitted validated central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) and unplanned extubation (UE) data stratified by patient race and ethnicity categories. Data were submitted using a crosswalk created by the study team that reconciled varying approaches to race and ethnicity data collection by participating hospitals. Harm rates for race and ethnicity categories were compared with reference values reflective of the cohort and broader children’s hospital population.ResultsRacial and ethnic disparities were identified in both harm types. Multiracial Hispanic, Combined Hispanic and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander patients had CLABSI rates of 2.6–3.6 SD above reference values. For Black or African American patients, UE rates were 3.2–4.4 SD higher. Rates of both events in White patients were significantly lower than reference values.ConclusionsThe combination of harm data across hospitals with varying race and ethnicity collection systems was accomplished through iterative development of a race and ethnicity category framework. We identified racial and ethnic disparities in CLABSI and UE that can be addressed in future improvement work by identifying and modifying care delivery factors that contribute to safety disparities.

ABSTRACT CONTEXT Research suggests that pharmaceutical marketing influences prescribing and may cause cognitive dissonance for prescribers. This work has primarily been with physicians and physician–trainees. Questions remain regarding why prescribers continue to meet with pharmaceutical representatives (PRs). OBJECTIVE To describe the reasons that prescribers from various health professions continue to interact with PRs despite growing evidence of the influence of these interactions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Multi-disciplinary focus groups with 61 participants held in practice settings and at society meetings. RESULTS Most prescribers participating in our focus groups believe that overall PR interactions are beneficial to patient care and practice health. They either trust the information from PRs or feel that they are equipped to evaluate it independently. Despite acknowledgement of study findings to the contrary, prescribers state that they are able to effectively manage PR interactions such that their own prescribing is not adversely impacted. Prescribers describe few specific strategies or policies for these interactions, and report that policies are not consistently implemented with all members of a clinic or institution. Some prescribers perceive an inherent contradiction between academic centers and national societies receiving money from pharmaceutical companies, and then recommending restriction at the level of the individual prescriber. Prescribers with different training backgrounds present a few novel reasons for these meetings. CONCLUSIONS Despite evidence that PR detailing influences prescribing, providers from several health professions continue to believe that PR interactions improve patient care, and that they can adequately evaluate and filter information presented to them by PRs. Focus group comments suggest that cultural change is necessary to break the norms that exist in many settings. Applying policies consistently, considering non-physician members of the healthcare team, working with trainees, restructuring the current primary care model and offering convenient, individualized, non-biased educational options may aid success.