Home > Review Articles > Separate and unequal: clinics where minority and nonminority patients receive primary care

Separate and unequal: clinics where minority and nonminority patients receive primary care

Making Education Easy

Authors:
Summary:

Data were examined from surveys of 96 primary care clinic managers, 388 primary care physicians, and 1701 of their adult patients with hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or congestive heart failure. Clinics were based in New York and in the upper Midwest; data from 27 clinics with ≥30% minority patients were contrasted with data from 69 clinics with <30% minority patients. Compared with clinics serving <30% minority patients, clinics serving ≥30% minority patients have less access to medical supplies (2.7 vs 3.4), referral specialists (3.0 vs 3.5) on a scale of 1 (none) to 4 (great), and examination rooms per physician (2.2 vs 2.7). Their patients are more frequently depressed (22.8% vs 12.1%), are more often covered by Medicaid (30.2% vs 11.4%), and report lower health literacy (3.7 vs 4.4) on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high). Physicians from clinics serving higher proportions of minority populations perceive their patients as frequently speaking little or no English (27.1% vs 3.4%), having more chronic pain (24.1% vs 12.9%) and substance abuse problems (15.1% vs 10.1%), and being more medically complex (53.1% vs 39.9%) and psychosocially complex (44.9% vs 28.2%). Regression analyses revealed that clinics with ≥30% minority patients are more likely to have chaotic work environments and to have fewer physicians reporting high work control or high job satisfaction.

Comment:
I have to admit that I occasionally screwed my nose when reading parts of this paper, especially the bits about clinicians’ perceptions of their patients. But then again, there are some aspects here that we should be open about and reflect on given the major workforce recruitment and retention issues for clinics serving communities with ‘high needs’. Certainly the ways in which healthcare is provided must take into account the increased complexity, inadequate resources and reduced access to secondary services for clinicians. Other ways to improve the working environment for clinicians may include clinical governance and a sound and effective infrastructure. Similar research is required here in NZ but the findings from this study could be useful for Māori-led primary care clinics.
Reference: Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(3):243-50.
Independent commentary by Dr. Matire Hardwood

Dr Matire Harwood (Ngapuhi) has worked in Hauora Māori, primary health and rehabilitation settings as clinician and researcher since graduating from Auckland Medical School in 1994. She also holds positions on a number of boards, committees and advisory groups including the Health Research Council. Matire lives in Auckland with her whānau including partner Haunui and two young children Te Rangiura and Waimarie.

Research Review publications are intended for New Zealand health professionals.

Disclaimer: This publication is not intended as a replacement for regular medical education but to assist in the process. The reviews are a summarised interpretation of the published study and reflect the opinion of the writer rather than those of the research group or scientific journal. It is suggested readers review the full trial data before forming a final conclusion on its merits.

Related Articles

Explore Māori Health Reviews

Dive into our publications and videos content from over 50 areas of medicine including Cardiology, Diabetes, Oncology, Haematology and Psychiatry. 

It looks like you are closest to our Australia site.

Australia
Australia
Find Reviews in Your Clinical Area
Please select your country of practice.
Terms and Conditions

Website terms of use 

By using our website, you agree to follow these terms and conditions. 

 

Privacy policy 

We take your privacy seriously. To understand how we collect, use, and protect your information, please read our Privacy Policy, which is part of these terms. 

 

Copyright and use of website content 

The content of our website is protected by copyright, trademarks, and other legal rights. You can: view, download, or print a single copy of content for your personal or professional use. 

You cannot:  copy, modify, or distribute website content, or use our website content for commercial purposes or in other works without permission. 

 

Links to third-party websites 

The Research Review website may link to third-party websites for your convenience. However: 

We do not endorse or approve their products, services, or actions. 

We are not responsible for their content or how they operate. 

There is no formal partnership between us and third parties unless we clearly state otherwise. 

 

Disclaimer and limitation of liability 

We do our best to keep the information on our website accurate, but we do not guarantee that it is always correct or up to date. 

To the fullest extent allowed by law, we are not responsible for: 

Any loss, damage, or costs you may suffer from using (or being unable to use) our website. 

Any decisions you make based on the information provided. 

Any business losses, such as lost profits, lost data, or business interruptions. 

 

Governing law 

These terms are governed by New Zealand law. If there is a dispute, it must be resolved in a New Zealand court.