‘Where is the diversity in this facility?’ Experiences of emergency care among visible minority individuals in Kingston, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Visible minorities, a growing segment of Canada's population, have voiced concerns about experiencing racism while receiving care in the emergency department (ED). Understanding the ED care experiences of visible minorities is crucial to improving care and reducing health disparities. METHODS: From June to August 2021, we collected data from participants in Kingston, Ontario using a sensemaking approach. Individuals who had accessed emergency care or accompanied someone else to the ED in the prior 24 months were eligible to participate. After sharing a brief narrative about their care experience, participants interpreted the experience by plotting their perspectives on a variety of pre-determined questions. Here, we conducted a thematic analysis of narratives involving patients who identified as visible minorities and complemented it with quantitative analysis of the participants' interpretative responses. This mixed-methods approach highlighted the distinct experiences of visible minority participants in relation to a comparison group. RESULTS: Of the 1973 unique participants, 117 identified as a visible minority and 949 participants did not identify with an equity-deserving group (comparison group). Visible minority participants were more likely to report that too little attention was paid to their identity and more likely to express a desire for a balance between receiving the best medical care and being treated with kindness and respect. Visible minorities' ED experiences were also more likely to be impacted by how emergency staff behaved. Qualitative analysis revealed negative experiences of feeling uninformed and disempowered, facing judgement and discrimination, and experiencing language barriers. Positive experiences of receiving compassionate care from staff also emerged. CONCLUSION: Visible minority perceptions of ED care were often negative and mainly focused on staff treatment. Cultural competency and language translation services are key areas for improvement to make ED care more accessible and equitable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".