Well-defined and explicit discrimination are some of the factors that contribute to health and health disparities.1 The obvious bias, ideas and attitudes that we accept as part of our personal beliefs, can be tested directly by self-expression. Prejudiced, racist, sexual, and homophobic conditions often breed prejudice. Instead, ideas and beliefs about race, ethnicity, age, probability, gender, or other characteristics that operate without our knowledge and can be tested indirectly. Well-known prejudices affect subtle judgment and can, without purpose, cause prejudice.2 A person can have similar beliefs when they have vague ideas and ideas that contradict what they believe.
Moreover, our personal prejudices operate in the larger, cultural, and economic spheres whose policies promote racism, xenophobia, and discrimination. In medicine, discriminatory practices and discriminatory practices not only disrupt patient care and medical facilities, but also reduce the diversity of medical staff, lead to unequal distribution of research costs, and may hinder the progress of careers.
A review of research by physicians, nurses, and other medical professionals found that well-known discrimination among medical providers is related to disease uncertainty and, for black patients, negative perceptions of their medical practice, patient instability, poor communication of caregivers, well-maintained. pain, perception of black patients as less medically compliant than White patients, and other complications.1 These biases are learned from cultural backgrounds and inclusion in time: in one study, 48.7% of U.S. medical students surveyed said they had encountered opposition to black patients in attendance or residential physicians, and the students showed significant discrimination. ‘year. 4 more than he had in 1 year.3
A review of the literature on the reduction of unfair discrimination, which looks at evidence in multiple ways and methods, revealed that methods such as showing conflicting examples, recognizing and understanding the views of others, and asking for equality did not lead to a reduction in obvious discrimination.2 Of course, there are no effective ways to reduce the bias that has been shown to have lasting effects. It is only natural, then, that health organizations should refrain from taking action to reduce bias and focus on eliminating discrimination and other negative consequences of discrimination.
Although common, unseen prejudices are hidden and can be difficult to detect, especially within yourself. It can be assumed that we all have prejudices, but the actions of individuals and groups can overcome the difficulties that arise as a result of these attitudes and beliefs. Recognizing bias is one step towards a change in behavior. There are a number of ways to enhance our understanding of bias, including the Harvard Implicit Association Tests, to address our misconceptions, and to take a closer look at the biased nature we face. Gonzalez and colleagues provide 12 tips for training to recognize and monitor bias; these include creating a safe environment, demonstrating well-known discrimination science and evidence of its influence on medical care, the use of diagnostic exercises, and engaging students in practicing skills and experiences that they should embrace.4
Prejudice education and coping strategies should be an integral part of the health system in order to establish knowledge in the community and to identify and manage bias. A study at the Center for Health Workforce Studies at the University of Washington (UW) School of Medicine (where I work) found that short online courses on well-known medical and educational discrimination can promote awareness of discrimination in international education. medical. The study was found to increase awareness of racism among traditional healers regardless of their personality or practices or the strengths of their racial and gender identity.5 Review is within the long-term effects of these studies on clinicians’ perceptions of bias and their reports of behavioral changes.
Through cognition, examples of actions that physicians can take immediately to address the consequences of well-known discrimination include such as cognitive, arbitrary, and randomized actions; participate in educating people to learn how to deal with or disrupt microaggressions and other harmful processes; and education aimed at eliminating patient misinterpretations and derogatory remarks in chart charts as well as direct communication with patients. Educators in academic hospitals are able to create learning materials that contain integrated, varied illustrations and examples and can attempt to use a combination of both written and oral words.
In organizations, the cornerstone of organizational bias should be a comprehensive and continuous program of interdisciplinary, multi-faceted, equitable, and inclusive (DEI) integration that incorporates the recognition and supervision of all staff and students. throughout the health system. Organizations need to collect data to monitor fairness. Organizations have also developed effective strategies for increasing the number of employees (https://diversity.nih.gov/); recognizing participation in anti-election practices and practices as necessary and appropriate in their professional policy; and developing enrollment, review, and promotion policies that recognize and provide credit to DEI candidates. Many US medical organizations have documented this, but not all have done so.
Some health organizations have developed schemes that provide biased reporting. For example, the UW School of Medicine and UW Medicine have used an online tool to allow the interested or viewer to express their concerns (https://depts.washington.edu/hcequity/bias-reporting-tool/). These events are monitored by a competent response team that collects information and corrects existing ones, such as the human resources department, or submits the event for further investigation and follow-up. Since visibility is important, UW Medicine provides a quarterly report on the number of bias cases that have taken place, groups (group, patients, caregivers, staff, students, trainees, visitors, or inclusion) affected by the incident, the groups that allegedly treated them, the places mentioned, topics or types of events reported. Preliminary analysis of the data collected by the reporting tool identified four key areas for immediate intervention: bias that affects pain management, response to microaggressions with known discrimination, biased comments or patient actions by medical team members, and opportunities to create our organization being integrated. These factors are now central to our bias management system.
Recent research is part of a strategy to curb the effects of well-known health risks. Researchers at the University of Indiana are developing blood pressure detectors to open a pain-relieving control door (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30755720/). These goals are hoped to reduce compliance and to discriminate against discrimination. Harvard researchers have provided ways to reduce the risk of unintentional binding in intelligent design practices that lead to injustice (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ecpe/how-to-prevent-algorithmic-bias-in-health- care / ). Researchers at UW (biomedical informatics and medical studies) and the University of California, San Diego (computer science), are collaborating to develop technologies to address unconstitutional discrimination in hospitals; The design tool will detect non-verbal cues of groups that disseminate physician disagreements in real-life situations with patients and provide specific feedback to physician or physician-in-training for a personal communication skills development program (https https://www.unbiased.health/).
U.S. medical institutions differ in the way they have acknowledged the need to address the consequences of anonymous bias. The strategies outlined herein can help health systems and clinicians to initiate or continue the reduction process, and ultimately address the complications that result from a well-defined discrimination in health care.