Articles

Hospital leaders often review patient safety through aggregate data. Those dashboards may suggest stable performance, but a different story can emerge when outcomes are stratified by race, language, disability, payer, or other patient characteristics (Figueroa et al., 2024; NCQA, 2024). If leaders are serious about identifying harm and strengthening safety culture, equity cannot remain a separate conversation. It belongs at the center of patient safety oversight (Van Dyke, 2020). 

Too often, safety and equity are handled in separate organizational lanes. Safety discussions focus on event counts, infections, readmissions, or falls, while equity is discussed elsewhere as a strategic or cultural priority. But disparities in communication failures, delayed diagnoses, barriers to access, and uneven care experiences are not just equity issues. They are patient safety issues with operational, legal, and reputational implications (Figueroa et al., 2024). 

That is why risk and patient safety teams should press leaders to ask a more important question: not simply whether overall performance is improving, but whether harm is being experienced differently across patient groups. Without that lens, leadership may be making decisions based on incomplete evidence (American College of Healthcare Executives [ACHE], 2025; Parand et al., 2014). 

What Leaders Are Missing 

Many organizations still rely on topline safety measures. Those measures matter, but they can hide meaningful variation across patient populations. Stratified reporting can reveal risks that remain invisible in summary dashboards (Figueroa et al., 2024; NCQA, 2024). The issue is not whether an organization has a separate diversity, equity, and inclusion strategy. The issue is whether its patient safety oversight is strong enough to detect patterns of harm that disproportionately affect certain groups (Figueroa et al., 2024). 

What Leaders Should Do 

The first step is practical, requiring a focused set of core safety and quality indicators to be reviewed through an equity lens. Organizations do not need to stratify everything at once. They can start with a manageable set of measures such as falls with harm, serious safety events, readmissions, grievances, or selected diagnostic and communication-related events (Figueroa et al., 2024; NCQA, 2024). 

Once those data are visible, leadership oversight becomes more meaningful. The question is no longer only whether performance is improving overall, but whether improvement is reaching the patients at greatest risk of harm. That is a stronger standard for governance and accountability (ACHE, 2023; Van Dyke, 2020). 

What Risk and Safety Teams Can Change Now 

Risk and safety teams can start by changing how events are reviewed. Root cause analyses, event investigations, and claims reviews should routinely consider whether language barriers, health literacy, disability access, bias, digital access, transportation challenges, or assumptions about the patient contributed to harm (National Center for Biotechnology Information [NCBI], 2023; Figueroa et al., 2024). This is not a separate body of work; it is a more complete way to evaluate risk. 

When equity-related contributory factors are documented, patterns can be escalated rather than dismissed as isolated events. Recurring themes may reveal structural risks that deserve executive attention and operational redesign (Figueroa et al., 2024). 

Leaders can reinforce this work structurally by making equity part of routine safety oversight. If quality committees, safety councils, and executive dashboards do not ask equity-focused questions, the issue is unlikely to receive sustained strategic attention (Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, 2021; Van Dyke, 2020). 

The Bottom Line 

For hospital leaders, the goal is not to add another initiative to an already crowded agenda. It is to make the existing safety agenda more accurate. Equity is not separate from patient safety work; it is part of identifying risk, understanding harm, and governing improvement effectively (ACHE, 2025). 

If safety data are not examined through an equity lens, important risks will remain hidden in plain sight (ACHE, 2023; Van Dyke, 2020). For organizations that claim to be committed to safer care, that should no longer be acceptable. 

References 

American College of Healthcare Executives. (2023). Prioritizing safety remains job no. 1. Healthcare Executive. https://www.healthcareexecutive.org/archives/march-april-2023/prioritizing-safety-remains-job-no-1  

American College of Healthcare Executives. (2025). ACHE code of ethics. https://www.ache.org/about-ache/our-story/our-commitments/ethics/ache-code-of-ethics  

Figueroa, J. F., Frakt, A. B., Chatterjee, P., et al. (2024). Disparity dashboards: An evaluation of the literature and framework. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10639125/  

Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance. (2021, July 21). Board's oversight of racial DE&I. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/07/22/boards-oversight-of-racial-dei/  

National Center for Biotechnology Information. (2023, August 22). Risk management event evaluation and responsibilities. NCBI Bookshelf. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559326/  

NCQA. (2024, April 8). Stratifying HEDIS measures by race & ethnicity. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/stratifying-hedis-measures-race-ethnicity-ncqa-ojwxc  

Parand, A., Dopson, S., Renz, A., & Vincent, C. (2014). The role of hospital managers in quality and patient safety. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4158193/  

Van Dyke, M. (2020). Engaging the board in patient safety goals. Healthcare Executive. https://www.healthcareexecutive.org/archives/march-april-2020/engaging-the-board-in-patient-safety-goals