Primary Care Clinician and Clinic Director Experiences of Professional Bias, Harassment, and Discrimination in an Underserved Agricultural Region of California

The experiences of culturally and linguistically diverse health practitioners in dominant culture practice: a scoping review

Increasing the proportion of culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) health practitioners is identified as one strategy to address healthcare disparities that individuals from minority or under-represented backgrounds experience. However, professional and institutional cultures and structures are known to contribute to the challenges for CALD practitioners who work in dominant culture practice contexts. This scoping review used the theory of Legitimate Peripheral Participation to describe and interpret literature about the experiences of CALD health practitioners in view of informing strategies to increase their representation. A systematised search was conducted across four allied health, medicine and nursing databases. Following abstract and full text screening, articles which fit the inclusion criteria (n = 124) proceeded to data extraction. Categories relating to the experiences of practitioners were extracted, and three themes were identified that were subsequently theoretically interpreted: Discrimination, Consequences and Hierarchy. Discrimination functioned as a barrier to CALD practitioners being legitimised and able to participate equally in healthcare practice, retaining their position at the periphery of the practice community; Consequences reinforced this peripheral position and further impeded legitimation and participation; and Hierarchy was maintained through structures that reinforced and reproduced these barriers. The findings summarise how these barriers are reinforced through the intersections of professional and racial hierarchies, and highlight a need for strategies to address discrimination and structures that marginalise CALD practitioners' identity, practices and participation in their health professional communities.

Perpetrators of gender-based workplace violence amongst nurses and physicians-A scoping review of the literature

In healthcare settings worldwide, workplace violence (WPV) has been extensively studied. However, significantly less is known about gender-based WPV and the characteristics of perpetrators. We conducted a comprehensive scoping review on Type II (directed by consumers) and Type III (perpetuated by healthcare workers) gender based-WPV among nurses and physicians globally. For the review, we followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta Analyses extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR). The protocol for the comprehensive review was registered on the Open Science Framework on January 14, 2022, at https://osf.io/t4pfb/. A systematic search in five health and social science databases yielded 178 relevant studies that indicated types of perpetrators, with only 34 providing descriptive data for perpetrators' gender. Across both types of WPV, men (65.1%) were more frequently responsible for perpetuating WPV compared to women (28.2%) and both genders (6.7%). Type II WPV, demonstrated a higher incidence of violence against women; linked to the gendered roles, stereotypes, and societal expectations that allocate specific responsibilities based on gender. Type III WPV was further categorized into Type III-A (horizontal) and Type III-B (vertical). With Type III WPV, gendered power structures and stereotypes contributed to a permissive environment for violence by men and women that victimized more women. These revelations emphasize the pressing need for gender-sensitive strategies for addressing WPV within the healthcare sector. Policymakers must prioritize the security of healthcare workers, especially women, through reforms and zero-tolerance policies. Promoting gender equality and empowerment within the workforce and leadership is pivotal. Additionally, creating a culture of inclusivity, support, and respect, led by senior leadership, acknowledging WPV as a structural issue and enabling an open dialogue across all levels are essential for combating this pervasive problem.

Contemporary evidence of workplace violence against the primary healthcare workforce worldwide: a systematic review

Violence against healthcare workers recently became a growing public health concern and has been intensively investigated, particularly in the tertiary setting. Nevertheless, little is known of workplace violence against healthcare workers in the primary setting. Given the nature of primary healthcare, which delivers essential healthcare services to the community, many primary healthcare workers are vulnerable to violent events. Since the Alma-Ata Declaration of 1978, the number of epidemiological studies on workplace violence against primary healthcare workers has increased globally. Nevertheless, a comprehensive review summarising the significant results from previous studies has not been published. Thus, this systematic review was conducted to collect and analyse recent evidence from previous workplace violence studies in primary healthcare settings. Eligible articles published in 2013-2023 were searched from the Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed literature databases. Of 23 included studies, 16 were quantitative, four were qualitative, and three were mixed method. The extracted information was analysed and grouped into four main themes: prevalence and typology, predisposing factors, implications, and coping mechanisms or preventive measures. The prevalence of violence ranged from 45.6% to 90%. The most commonly reported form of violence was verbal abuse (46.9-90.3%), while the least commonly reported was sexual assault (2-17%). Most primary healthcare workers were at higher risk of patient- and family-perpetrated violence (Type II). Three sub-themes of predisposing factors were identified: individual factors (victims' and perpetrators' characteristics), community or geographical factors, and workplace factors. There were considerable negative consequences of violence on both the victims and organisations. Under-reporting remained the key issue, which was mainly due to the negative perception of the effectiveness of existing workplace policies for managing violence. Workplace violence is a complex issue that indicates a need for more serious consideration of a resolution on par with that in other healthcare settings. Several research gaps and limitations require additional rigorous analytical and interventional research. Information pertaining to violent events must be comprehensively collected to delineate the complete scope of the issue and formulate prevention strategies based on potentially modifiable risk factors to minimise the negative implications caused by workplace violence.

Gender Discrimination and Mental Health Among Health Care Workers: Findings from a Mixed Methods Study

Background: Gender discrimination among healthcare workers (HCWs) negatively impacts their mental health and career development; however, few studies have explored how experiences of gender discrimination change during times of health system strain. Methods: This survey-based study assesses the associations between gender discrimination and four stress-related mental health outcomes (posttraumatic stress, depression, anxiety, and burnout), as well as the qualitative experiences of gender discrimination in healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Among women, increased gender discrimination was associated with heightened symptoms of posttraumatic stress, depression, anxiety, and burnout after adjusting for demographics and pandemic-related stressors; however, among men, increased gender discrimination was only associated with heightened symptoms of depression. Using thematic analysis, we identified five themes that describe experiences of gender discrimination faced by women in healthcare, including differential valuing of work and contributions, gendered roles and assumptions about roles, maternal discrimination, objectification, and "old boys club." We also identified two themes describing how men perceived gender discrimination, including instances of symbolic discrimination and woman provider preference. Conclusion: These findings suggest that experiences of gender discrimination persist during times of health system strain and negatively impact women HCWs' mental health.

Original Research: Nurses' Experiences with Racial, Ethnic, Cultural, and Religious Discrimination in the Workplace: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

As the health care workforce diversifies, understanding and addressing the lived experiences of health care professionals facing prejudice and discrimination becomes increasingly important. Previous studies have focused on physicians and medical trainees, but there remains a dearth of research exploring nurses' experiences-even though nurses make up the largest sector of the nation's health care workforce.

OBJECTIVE

This qualitative study explored nurses' experiences of personally mediated workplace discrimination based on race, ethnicity, culture, or religion.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with a convenience sample of 15 RNs at one academic medical center. Using an inductive thematic analysis approach, we identified several themes emerging from RNs' experiences and responses to a discriminatory event ("encounter"). Themes were grouped across three phases: pre-encounter, encounter, and post-encounter.

RESULTS

Participants reported wide-ranging experiences, from insensitive joking to overt exclusion, coming from various people including patients, patients' family members, colleagues, and physicians. For many, discrimination was cumulative: similar encounters occurred outside the workplace as well as within the clinical setting, often repeatedly, and were influenced by the sociopolitical context. Participants reported a variety of responses, including emotional reactions such as shock, fear of retaliation, and frustration at being expected to represent one's identity group. Silence or inaction predominated bystander and supervisor responses. Although the encounters themselves were fleeting, their impact was enduring. Early-career encounters were most challenging, and participants grappled internally with lasting effects for years. Long-term effects included avoidance of perpetrators, disconnection from colleagues and their own professional role, and leaving the workplace.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings illuminate nurses' experiences with racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious discrimination in the workplace. Understanding how such discrimination affects nurses is critical to developing effective responses to encounters, creating safer workplaces, and promoting equity within the profession.

Racism in healthcare: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Racism constitutes a barrier towards achieving equitable healthcare as documented in research showing unequal processes of delivering, accessing, and receiving healthcare across countries and healthcare indicators. This review summarizes studies examining how racism is discussed and produced in the process of delivering, accessing and receiving healthcare across various national contexts.

METHOD

The PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews were followed and databases were searched for peer reviewed empirical articles in English across national contexts. No starting date limitation was applied for this review. The end date was December 1, 2020. The review scoped 213 articles. The results were summarized, coded and thematically categorized in regards to the aim.

RESULTS

The review yielded the following categories: healthcare users' experiences of racism in healthcare; healthcare staff's experiences of racism; healthcare staff's racial attitudes and beliefs; effects of racism in healthcare on various treatment choices; healthcare staff's reflections on racism in healthcare and; antiracist training in healthcare. Racialized minorities experience inadequate healthcare and being dismissed in healthcare interactions. Experiences of racism are associated with lack of trust and delay in seeking healthcare. Racialized minority healthcare staff experience racism in their workplace from healthcare users and colleagues and lack of organizational support in managing racism. Research on healthcare staff's racial attitudes and beliefs demonstrate a range of negative stereotypes regarding racialized minority healthcare users who are viewed as difficult. Research on implicit racial bias illustrates that healthcare staff exhibit racial bias in favor of majority group. Healthcare staff's racial bias may influence medical decisions negatively. Studies examining healthcare staff's reflections on racism and antiracist training show that healthcare staff tend to construct healthcare as impartial and that healthcare staff do not readily discuss racism in their workplace.

CONCLUSIONS

The USA dominates the research. It is imperative that research covers other geo-political contexts. Research on racism in healthcare is mainly descriptive, atheoretical, uses racial categories uncritically and tends to ignore racialization processes making it difficult to conceptualize racism. Sociological research on racism could inform research on racism as it theoretically explains racism's structural embeddedness, which could aid in tackling racism to provide good quality care.

Physicians' Experiences With Mistreatment and Discrimination by Patients, Families, and Visitors and Association With Burnout

Importance

Burnout is common among physicians and is associated with suboptimal patient outcomes. Little is known about how experiences with patients, families, and visitors differ by physician characteristics or contribute to the risk of burnout.

Objective

To examine the occurrence of mistreatment and discrimination by patients, families, and visitors by physician characteristics and the association between such interactions and experiencing burnout.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional survey was conducted from November 20, 2020, to March 23, 2021, among US physicians.

Exposures

Mistreatment and discrimination were measured using items adapted from the Association of American Medical College's Graduation Questionnaire with an additional item querying respondents about refusal of care because of the physicians' personal attributes; higher score indicated greater exposure to mistreatment and discrimination.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Burnout as measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory.

Results

Of 6512 responding physicians, 2450 (39.4%) were female, and 369 (7.2%) were Hispanic; 681 (13.3%) were non-Hispanic Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander; and 3633 (70.5%) were non-Hispanic White individuals. Being subjected to racially or ethnically offensive remarks (1849 [29.4%]), offensive sexist remarks (1810 [28.7%]), or unwanted sexual advances (1291 [20.5%]) by patients, families, or visitors at least once in the previous year were common experiences. Approximately 1 in 5 physicians (1359 [21.6%]) had experienced a patient or their family refusing to allow them to provide care because of the physician's personal attributes at least once in the previous year. On multivariable analyses, female physicians (OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 2.02-2.69) and ethnic and racial minority physicians (eg, Black or African American: OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.13-2.23) were more likely to report mistreatment or discrimination in the previous year. Experience of mistreatment or discrimination was independently associated with higher odds of burnout (vs score of 0 [no mistreatment], score of 1: OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.04-1.55; score of 2: OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.38-2.08; score of 3: OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.89-2.57). There was no difference in the odds of burnout by gender after controlling for experiencing mistreatment and discrimination score and other demographic factors, specialty, practice setting, work hours, and frequency of overnight call.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, mistreatment and discrimination by patients, families, and visitors were common, especially for female and racial and ethnic minority physicians, and associated with burnout. Efforts to mitigate physician burnout should include attention to patient and visitor conduct.

The dual pandemics of COVID-19 and racism: impact on early childhood development and implications for physicians

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted healthcare and racial inequities. This article discusses recent literature documenting the impact of racism on early childhood development, disparities in access to developmental services and ways healthcare providers and health systems can promote physician well being during these difficult times.

RECENT FINDINGS

Exposure to racism begins prenatally, and early childhood experiences with racism are intimately tied to adverse physical and mental health outcomes. Early intervention is key to treating children with developmental delay, but disparities exist in accessing eligibility screening and in the provision of services. Paediatric providers are at risk of developing secondary traumatic stress and burnout, which may affect the care that they provide.

SUMMARY

New research has led to the development of resources that help paediatric providers address racism, access developmental resources in a novel manner and protect the paediatric workforce from trauma and burnout.

Incidence and Group Comparisons of Harassment Based on Gender, LGBTQ+ Identity, and Race at an Academic Medical Center

Background: A key recommendation from the landmark National Academies report called for research examining experiences of underrepresented and/or vulnerable groups, including people of color and sexual- and gender-minority people. We examine the prevalence of gender policing harassment (GPH), heterosexist harassment (HH), and racialized sexual harassment (RSH), by gender, LGBTQ+, race, and department grouping, which has not been previously examined in academic medicine. Materials and Methods: All faculty (n = 2723), fellows, residents, and first through third year medical students (n = 1822) at the University of Michigan Medical School (UMMS) who had been working at the organization for at least 1 year were invited to complete a 20-minute online survey. We assessed harassment within the past year, perpetrated by insiders (i.e., staff, students, and faculty) and from patients and patients' families. Results: A total of 705 faculty (25.9% of the targeted sample) and 583 trainees (32.0% of the targeted sample) were in the analytic sample. Women were significantly more likely to experience GPH from both sources than men, and LGBTQ+ individuals were more likely to face HH from both sources than cisgender heterosexual participants. Underrepresented minorities, Asian/Asian American, and female participants had higher rates of RSH perpetrated by insiders. There were significant department-group differences across harassment types. Conclusions: Less-studied forms of harassment are common within academic medicine and are perpetrated from various sources. Identity-based harassment should be investigated further to gain a comprehensive understanding of its impact within academic medicine. Clinical Trial Registration Number not applicable.

Academic Emergency Medicine Faculty Experiences with Racial and Sexual Orientation Discrimination

INTRODUCTION

Despite the increasing diversity of individuals entering medicine, physicians from racial and sexual minority groups continue to experience bias and discrimination in the workplace. The objective of this study was to determine the current experiences and perceptions of discrimination on the basis of race and sexual orientation among academic emergency medicine (EM) faculty.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of EM faculty across six programs. Survey items included the Overt Gender Discrimination at Work (OGDW) Scale adapted for race and sexual orientation, and the frequency and source of experienced and observed discrimination. Group comparisons were made using t-tests or chi-square analyses, and relationships between race or sexual orientation, and we evaluated physicians' experiences using correlation analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 141 out of 352 (40.1%) subjects completed at least a portion of the survey. Non-White physicians reported higher mean racial OGDW scores than their White counterparts (13.4 vs 8.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference, -7.7 - -2.9). Non-White EM faculty were also more likely to report having experienced discriminatory treatment based on race than were White EM faculty (48.0% vs 12.6%; CI for difference, 16.6% - 54.2%), although both groups were equally likely to report having observed race-based discrimination of another physician. EM faculty who identified as sexual minorities reported higher mean sexual minority OGDW scores than their heterosexual counterparts (11.1 vs 7.1; 95% CI for difference, -7.3 - -0.6). There were no significant differences between sexual minority and heterosexual faculty in their reports of experiencing or observing discrimination based on sexual orientation.

CONCLUSION

EM faculty from racial and sexual minority groups perceived more discrimination based on race or sexual orientation in their workplace than their majority counterparts. EM faculty regardless of race or sexual orientation were similar in their observations of discriminatory treatment of another physician based on race or sexual orientation.