Professionalism in the Twilight Zone: A Multicenter, Mixed-Methods Study of Shift Transition Dynamics in Surgical Residencies

The Impact of Relocating a Trauma Center: Observations on Patient Injury Demographics and Resident Volumes

Introduction Changing the physical zip code location of an academic trauma center may affect the distribution and surgical volume of its trauma patients. General surgical residency case log requirements may also be affected. This study describes the impact of moving a level I trauma center to a different zip code location, on the hospital and resident trauma case volumes. Methods This retrospective analysis included all patients within the local trauma registry across two fiscal years representing the pre- and post-move timeframes. Variables collected included patient basic sociodemographic and injury information, trauma activation level and transfer status, management (operative management [OPM] versus non-operative management [NOPM]), and resident case logs. Results During fiscal years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, 3,025 patients were included. Pre-move and post-move trauma volumes were 1,208 and 1,817 respectively. Post-move changes demonstrated differences in basic sociodemographics, with differences in age (six years older), a shift toward white and away from black (12.89%), and males being seen more frequently (11.87%). Injury severity score distribution shifted (7.72%) towards less severe trauma scores (<15), the percentage of patients with blunt trauma (4.19%) and falls increased (ground level and greater than 1 meter, 9.78%) while the number of patients considered full activations were decreased (15.67%). Proportions of OPM and NOPM trauma cases remained unchanged with the exception of a reduction in emergent operative trauma (3.1%). Resident case logs requirements were met both pre- and post-move. Conclusion Relocating the trauma center to a different zip code location did not negatively impact our resident case volumes. Total trauma volumes were increased, with a shift in the demographics and severity distribution of injuries.

Association between patient care ownership and personal or environmental factors among medical trainees: a multicenter cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Patient care ownership (PCO) is crucial to enhancing accountability, clinical skills, and medical care quality among medical trainees. Despite its relevance, there is limited information on the association of personal or environmental factors with PCO, and thus, authors aimed to explore this association.

METHODS

In 2021, the authors conducted a multicentered cross-sectional study in 25 hospitals across Japan. PCO was assessed by using the Japanese version of the PCO Scale (J-PCOS). To examine the association between personal (level of training, gender, and department) or environmental factors (hospital size, hospital type, medical care system, number of team members, number of patients receiving care, mean working hours per week, number of off-hour calls per month, and perceived level of the workplace as a learning environment) and PCO after adjusting for clustering within hospitals, the authors employed a linear mixed-effects model.

RESULTS

The analysis included 401 trainees. After adjusting for clustering within hospitals, it was confirmed that the senior residents had significantly better J-PCOS total scores (adjusted mean difference: 8.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.18-11.09) than the junior residents and the perceived level of the workplace as a learning environment had a positive association with J-PCOS total scores (adjusted mean difference per point on a global rating of 0-10 points: 1.39, 95% CI: 0.88-1.90). Trainees who received calls after duty hours had significantly higher J-PCOS total scores than those who did not (adjusted mean difference: 2.51, 95% CI: 0.17-4.85). There was no clear trend in the association between working hours and PCO.

CONCLUSIONS

Seniority and the perceived level of the workplace as a learning environment are associated with PCO. An approach that establishes a supportive learning environment and offers trainees a reasonable amount of autonomy may be beneficial in fostering PCO among trainees. The study findings will serve as a useful reference for designing an effective postgraduate clinical training program for PCO development.

"It is you, me on the team together, and my child": Attending, resident, and patient family perspectives on patient ownership

INTRODUCTION

Patient ownership is an important element of physicians' professional responsibility, but important gaps remain in our understanding of this concept. We sought to develop a theory of patient ownership by studying it in continuity clinics from the perspective of residents, attending physicians, and patients.

METHODS

Using constructivist grounded theory, we conducted 27 semi-structured interviews of attending physicians, residents, and patient families within two pediatric continuity clinics to examine definitions, expectations, and experiences of patient ownership from March-August 2019. We constructed themes using constant comparative analysis and developed a theory describing patient ownership that takes into account a diversity of perspectives.

RESULTS

Patient ownership was described as a bi-directional, relational commitment between patient/family and physician that includes affective and behavioral components. The experience of patient ownership was promoted by continuity of care and constrained by logistical and other systems-based factors. The physician was seen as part of a medical care team that included clinic staff and patient families. Physicians adjusted expectations surrounding patient ownership for residents based on scheduling limitations.

DISCUSSION

Our theory of patient ownership portrays the patient/family as an active participant in the patient-physician relationship, rather than a passive recipient of care. While specific expectations and tasks will vary based on the practice setting, our findings reframe the way in which patient ownership can be viewed and studied in the future by attending to a diversity of perspectives.

Exploring the evolving concept of 'patient ownership' in the era of resident duty hour regulations-experience of residents and faculty in an internal medicine night float system

BACKGROUND

Despite the use of 'patient ownership' as an embodiment of professionalism and increasing concerns over its loss among trainees, how its development in residents has been affected by duty hour regulations has not been well described. In this qualitative study, we aim to outline the key features of patient ownership in internal medicine, factors enabling its development, and how these have been affected by the adoption of a night float system to comply with duty hour regulations.

METHODS

In this qualitative descriptive study, we interviewed 18 residents and 12 faculty internists at one university centre and conducted a thematic analysis of the data focused on the concept of patient ownership.

RESULTS

We identified three key features of patient ownership: personal concern for patients, professional capacity for autonomous decision-making, and knowledge of patients' issues. Within the context of a night float system, factors that facilitate development of patient ownership include improved fitness for duty and more consistent interactions with patients/families resulting from working the same shift over consecutive days (or nights). Conversely, the increase in patient handovers, if done poorly, is a potential threat to patient ownership development. Trainees often struggle to develop ownership when autonomy is not supported with supervision and when role-modelling by faculty is lacking.

DISCUSSION

These features of patient ownership can be used to frame discussions when coaching trainees. Residency programs should be mindful of the downstream effects of shift-based scheduling. We propose strategies to optimize factors that enable trainee development of patient ownership.

Whose Patient Is This? A Scoping Review of Patient Ownership

PURPOSE

The scope of physicians' responsibility toward patients is becoming increasingly complicated to delimit as interdisciplinary care delivery and degrees of subspecialization increase. Patients can easily be lost across multiple transitions involved in care. Preparing learners to engage in safe and responsible patient care requires that we be clear about parameters of patient ownership. This scoping review (1) explores and synthesizes definitions of patient ownership and (2) describes the factors that influence patient ownership.

METHOD

Searching PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO, the authors sought out publications of any format (i.e., original research papers, review articles, commentaries, editorials, and author discussions) that (1) addressed patient ownership directly or a closely related concept that explicitly affected patient ownership, (2) included medical care providers (attending/faculty physicians, medical residents, and/or medical students), and (3) were published in English. The authors analyzed findings to construct common themes and categorize findings.

RESULTS

Of 411 papers screened, 82 met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-three papers defined patient ownership in highly variable ways. Common themes across definitions included responsibility for patient care, personally carrying out patient care tasks, knowledge of patients' medical information, independent decision making, and putting patients' needs above one's own. Factors influencing patient ownership were (1) logistical concerns, (2) personal attributes, and (3) socially or organizationally constructed expectations.

CONCLUSIONS

A new definition of patient ownership is proposed encompassing findings from the review, while also respecting the shift from individual to a team-based patient care, and without removing the centrality of an individual provider's commitment to patients.

Prevention and management of unprofessional behaviour among adults in the workplace: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Unprofessional behaviour is a challenge in academic medicine. Given that faculty are role models for trainees, it is critical to identify strategies to manage these behaviours. A scoping review was conducted to identify interventions to prevent and manage unprofessional behaviour in any workplace or professional setting.

METHODS

A search of 14 electronic databases was conducted in March 2016, reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were scanned, and grey literature was searched to identify relevant studies. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies that reported on interventions to prevent or manage unprofessional behaviours were included. Studies that reported impact on any outcome were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened articles and completed data abstraction. Qualitative analysis of the definitions of unprofessional behaviour was conducted. Data were charted to describe the study, participant, intervention and outcome characteristics.

RESULTS

12,482 citations were retrieved; 23 studies with 11,025 participants were included. The studies were 12 uncontrolled before and after studies, 6 controlled before and after studies, 2 cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 1 RCT, 1 non-randomised controlled trial and 1 quasi-RCT. Four constructs were identified in the definitions of unprofessional behaviour: verbal and/or non-verbal acts, repeated acts, power imbalance, and unwelcome behaviour. Interventions most commonly targeted individuals (22 studies, 95.7%) rather than organisations (4 studies, 17.4%). Most studies (21 studies, 91.3%) focused on increasing awareness. The most frequently targeted behaviour change was sexual harassment (4 of 7 studies).

DISCUSSION

Several interventions appear promising in addressing unprofessional behaviour. Most of the studies included single component, in-person education sessions targeting individuals and increasing awareness of unprofessional behaviour. Fewer studies targeted the institutional culture or addressed behaviour change.

Scholarly Conversations in Medical Education

This supplement includes the eight research papers accepted by the 2016 Research in Medical Education Program Planning Committee. In this Commentary, the authors use "conversations in medical education" as a guiding metaphor to explore what these papers contribute to the current scholarly discourse in medical education. They organize their discussion around two domains: the topic of study and the methodological approach. The authors map the eight research papers to six "hot topics" in medical education: (1) curriculum reform, (2) duty hours restriction, (3) learner well-being, (4) innovations in teaching and assessment, (5) self-regulated learning, and (6) learning environment, and to three purposes commonly served by medical education research: (1) description, (2) justification, and (3) clarification. They discuss the range of methods employed in the papers. The authors end by encouraging educators to engage in these ongoing scholarly conversations.