Introducing an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Champion to Address Unconscious Bias Within the Clinical Intake Meeting Selection Process in a Community Psychotherapy Adolescent Department

AIMS: It is widely recognised that the performance of the health care system falls far short of its potential on a wide range of quality indicators, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities and other disadvantaged groups. Within the Adolescent and Young Adult Service, data from the clinical intake meeting have been previously collected and stratified, identifying disparity conditions and populations based on gender (accepted females to males ratio = 7:1); ethnicity (low proportion of Black/Asian/Mixed background represented within the service); age (vast majority of accepted being in their 17s); disability (low proportion of disabled seen). Primary aim for this project was to evaluate whether the introduction of an EDI champion plus an EDI discussion within the intake clinical meeting could improve our department performance in terms of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) quality indicators comparing to historical data. METHODS: A comprehensive Excel spreadsheet has been designed. All new referrals from November 22 till January 23 were included (N=29). Data collection included: non identifiable patients details, gender, date of birth, occupation, ethnicity, language, disability, outcome of the meeting, details of outcome, reason if outcome being negative. A further column on EDI comments. RESULTS: Following the introduction of the EDI champion for this cohort of patients, a decreased percentage of females (73.9% vs 69.2%) and increased percentage of transgender males (4.3% vs 15.4%) were offered an assessment. In terms of ethnicity, the number of Black/Asians/Mixed rejected for an assessment decreased. Respectively, 36.4% vs 11.1% (chi-square = 4.14, p-value = 0.47); 18.2% vs 11.1% (chi-square = 0.08, p-value ≈ 0 being statistically significant); 18.2% vs 0% (chi-square = 2.47, p-value = 0.26). An increased number of White people were rejected for an assessment which was also statistically significant (27.3% vs 66.7%; chi-square=1.96, p-value ≈ 0). Reasons for rejection have been recorded. More age groups (19, 20, 22 years old) were more widely represented in the new cohort of patients. CONCLUSION: The introduction of an EDI champion and an EDI discussion, within the clinic intake meeting selection process, seems a valuable instrument to tailor intervention for disparity groups (e.g. ethnicity), assessing both quality and disparities at the same time aiming for a Culturally Competent Quality Improvement within the service. This findings can be easily applied to other departments and implemented more broadly.