Developing Standards for Cultural Competency Training for Health Care Providers to Care for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, and Asexual Persons: Consensus Recommendations from a National Panel

Purpose:

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and/or asexual and other sexual and gender diverse persons (LGBTQIA+ or SGD persons) experience barriers to equitable health care. The purpose of this article is to describe a collaborative process that resulted in core cultural competency recommendations addressing training for those who provide health care and/or social services to LGBTQIA+ patients.

Methods:

In 2018 and 2019, Whitman-Walker Health, a Federally Qualified Community Health Center in Washington, DC, and the National LGBT Cancer Network purposively selected leaders of community clinics and community-based organizations, cultural competency trainers, and clinicians and researchers with expertise in SGD health with diverse lived experiences to develop consensus-based cultural competency recommendations. Recommendations were developed through a synthesis of peer-reviewed studies, publicly accessible curricula, and evaluations of SGD cultural competency trainings; two in-person convenings; and iterative feedback from diverse stakeholders.

Results:

Five anchoring recommendations emerged: (1) know your audience; (2) develop and fine-tune the curriculum; (3) employ both adult and transformational learning theories; (4) choose multiple effective trainers; and (5) evaluate impact of training. These recommendations promote an ongoing process of individual and organizational improvement and a stance of humility rather than competence to be mastered.

Conclusion:

By setting core cultural competency standards for all persons involved in health care and social services, these recommendations complement existing clinical competency recommendations to advance SGD health equity.

Clinical practice guidelines 2019: Indian consensus-based recommendations on influenza vaccination in adults

Influenza, a common cause of acute respiratory infections, is an important health problem worldwide, including in India. Influenza is associated with several complications; people with comorbidities and the elderly are at a higher risk for such complications. Moreover, the influenza virus constantly changes genetically, thereby worsening therapeutic outcomes. Vaccination is an effective measure for the prevention of influenza. Despite the availability of global guidelines on influenza vaccination in adults, country-specific guidelines based on regional variation in disease burden are required for better disease management in India. With this aim, the Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians of India jointly conducted an expert meeting in January 2019. The discussion was aimed at delineating evidence-based recommendations on adult influenza vaccination in India. The present article discusses expert recommendations on clinical practice guidelines to be followed in India for adult influenza vaccination, for better management of the disease burden.

Clinical practice guidelines 2019: Indian consensus-based recommendations on pneumococcal vaccination for adults

Similar to the global scenario, pneumococcal diseases are a significant health concern in India. Pneumococcal diseases occur frequently among adults and are largely preventable through vaccines. Globally, several guidelines and recommendations are available for pneumococcal vaccination in adults. However, owing to wide variations in the disease burden, regulatory landscape, and health-care system in India, such global guidelines cannot be unconditionally implemented throughout the country. To address these gaps, the Indian Chest Society and National College of Chest Physicians of India jointly conducted an expert meeting in January 2019. The aim of the discussion was to lay down specific evidence-based recommendations on adult pneumococcal vaccination for the country, with a view to further ameliorate the disease burden in the country. This article presents an overview of the closed-door discussion by the expert members on clinical practice guidelines to be followed for adult pneumococcal vaccination in India.

Expert Recommendations on Frequency of Utilization of Common Laboratory Tests in Medical Inpatients: a Canadian Consensus Study

BACKGROUND

Repetitive inpatient laboratory testing in the face of clinical stability is a marker of low-value care. However, for commonly encountered clinical scenarios on medical units, there are no guidelines defining appropriate use criteria for laboratory tests.

OBJECTIVE

This study seeks to establish consensus-based recommendations for the utilization of common laboratory tests in medical inpatients.

DESIGN

This study uses a modified Delphi method. Participants completed two rounds of an online survey to determine appropriate testing frequencies for selected laboratory tests in commonly encountered clinical scenarios. Consensus was defined as agreement by at least 80% of participants.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were 36 experts in internal medicine across Canada defined as internists in independent practice for ≥ 5 years with experience in medical education, quality improvement, or both. Experts represented 8 of the 10 Canadian provinces and 13 of 17 academic institutions.

MAIN MEASURES

Laboratory tests and clinical scenarios included were those that were considered common on medical units. The final survey contained a total of 45 clinical scenarios looking at the utilization of six laboratory tests (complete blood count, electrolytes, creatinine, urea, international normalized ratio, and partial thromboplastin time). The possible frequency choices were every 2-4 h, 6-8 h, twice a day, daily, every 2-3 days, weekly, or none unless there was specific diagnostic suspicion. These scenarios were reviewed by two internists with training in quality improvement and survey methods.

KEY RESULTS

Of the 45 initial clinical scenarios included, we reached consensus on 17 scenarios. We reached weak consensus on an additional 19 scenarios by combining two adjacent frequency categories.

CONCLUSIONS

A Canadian expert panel of internists has provided frequency recommendations on the utilization of six common laboratory tests in medical inpatients. These recommendations need validation in prospective studies to assess whether restrictive versus liberal laboratory test ordering impacts patient outcomes.