Yesterday we ran a story headlined "Cultural Competency: Hospitals More Receptive to LGBT Concerns." Although our facts were correct, our emphasis was not. We gave you the distinct impression that hospitals in general were more receptive to LGBT concerns. This is not what the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) study showed. Although the HRC tried to find out if hospitals were more receptive, they only received a 9 percent response rate.

No doubt that the hospitals that responded to the survey demonstrated concern and care for their LGBT patients. But you cannot assume that this is indicative of the hospitals that did not respond.

Comparing the statistics between the worst performing companies that submit data to The DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity^® competition and the national average for work force statistics, we can tell that even the worst companies we measure are far better than ones that do not compete at all. We can assume this is the case for the HRC study of hospital systems as well.

To add context to this assumption, you should know that the hospital industry is not particularly competitive in our Top 50 survey. They have a much lower percentage of companies achieving a spot on our list compared to those that participate. Interestingly, the pharmaceutical and health-insurance industries are much more competitive.

I am sorry our story was misleading. I had concerns when I read it before it was posted but made the mistake of not taking action. A loyal reader corrected us, and here is his unedited e-mail:

Subject: GRRR.... hospital drivel....

All,
As it's been a few months since I've darkened your In box, I was compelled to sound off on the magazine's regurgiation of HRC's lackluster hospital survey.  HRC received under a 9% response rate, clearly a self-selecting affirming bunch; and the respondents reflected an overwhelmingly West Coast array of institutions, far from a valid representation of American hospitals and not worth touting as showing LGBT acceptance from the industry.  Where was HRC's effort to follow up with non-respondents or to collect patient perceptions?  Where your critical analysis of the data?  In short, your magazine owes LGBT Americans an apology for offering any representation that hospitals in general are more accepting and accommodating of our relationships--the numbers do not support the conclusion.

To back up my bluster, I offer my 4 April 2008 experience with scheduled brain surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital.  On admission, I provided a copy of my Virginia medical directive naming my partner of seven years as attorney-in-fact in the event of my inability to take medical decisions on my own behalf.  A copy of the same document had been provided to the neurosurgeon from The George Washington University medical faculty during an office consultation.  And thanks to an unrelated morning radio appearance that day during which I discussed the procedure, I was well known to the nursing staff before my arrival.

George joined me in the pre-op area as the dutiful spouse, once I was gowned and after my IV was started.  When the surgeon stopped to discuss the procedure one last time, he initialed my forehead on the side where the scalp was to be drilled.  Then, he was puzzled:  how was I to sign?  He was oblivious to my partner.  Worse, when surgery was over, the surgeon did not pay the customary visit to waiting family with an update--two hours later a nurse noticed George still waiting and got him to me in the ICU where I would spend the night.  In short, the nurses were respectful of my relationship, but it seemed that the doctor and the facility could not be bothered to offer the same.

Namaste,
David Phillips
Arlington, VA