Reflections From the Rearview Mirror: Internal Medicine Physicians' Reactions to Clinical Feedback After Transitions of Responsibility

Emotion as reflexive practice: A new discourse for feedback practice and research

INTRODUCTION

Like medicine and health care, feedback is a practice imbued with emotions: saturated with feelings relevant to one's identity and status within a given context. Often this emotional dimension of feedback is cast as an impediment to be ignored or managed. Such a perspective can be detrimental to feedback practices as emotions are fundamentally entwined with learning. In this critical review, we ask: What are the discourses of emotion in the feedback literature and what 'work' do they do?

METHODS

We conducted a critical literature review of emotion and feedback in the three top journals of the field: Academic Medicine, Medical Education and Advances in Health Sciences Education. Analysis was informed by a Foucauldian critical discourse approach and involved identifying discourses of emotion and interpreting how they shape feedback practices.

FINDINGS

Of 32 papers, four overlapping discourses of emotion were identified. Emotion as physiological casts emotion as internal, biological, ever-present, immutable and often problematic. Emotion as skill positions emotion as internal, mainly cognitive and amenable to regulation. A discourse of emotion as reflexive practice infers a social and interpersonal understanding of emotions, whereas emotion as socio-cultural discourse extends the reflexive practice discourse seeing emotion as circulating within learning environments as a political force.

DISCUSSION

Drawing on scholarship within the sociology of emotions, we suggest the merits of studying emotion as inevitable (not pathological), as potentially paralysing and motivating and as situated within (and often reinforcing) a hierarchical social health care landscape. For future feedback research, we suggest shifting towards recognising the discourse-theory-practice connection with emotion in health professional education drawing from reflexive and socio-cultural discourses of emotion.

Electronic health record-based patient tracking by emergency medicine physicians

OBJECTIVES

Emergency medicine (EM) physicians commonly track the progress of former patients to learn about their clinical outcome. While some studies have described the behavior, little is known about the specific information sought during tracking. The objective of this study was to determine how often EM physicians track patients and the motivations, strategies, and barriers to tracking.

METHODS

In June 2019 we surveyed EM physicians practicing at six hospitals. We defined patient tracking as viewing the chart of a patient who was no longer under the physician's care or contacting the patient or the patient's subsequent providers to learn about the patient's progress. The survey asked respondents how often they track patients, by what mechanisms, and for what reasons. The survey also asked what information physicians sought when tracking and what barriers to tracking exist.

RESULTS

Of the 156 EM physicians invited to respond, 111 completed the survey (72% response rate). Of those, 109 (98%) reported tracking their patients, and residents reported tracking a higher percentage of patients than attendings. Reasons for tracking included an unusual or complex case (98%), uncertain diagnosis (89%), and concern about a potential error (48%). Most respondents (86%) said that knowledge gained from patient tracking changed their subsequent practice patterns, and almost all respondents (98%) strongly agreed or agreed that tracking helps physicians avoid future mistakes. The most commonly sought information types during tracking were the hospital discharge summary or emergency department note from the index visit, test results since the index visit, and new diagnoses added since the index visit. Physicians cited time limitations and difficulty accessing information as the leading barriers to tracking.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient tracking is nearly ubiquitous among surveyed EM physicians, who find it valuable for learning and patient safety.

Crossing Academic Boundaries for Diagnostic Safety: 10 Complex Challenges and Potential Solutions From Clinical Perspectives and High-Reliability Organizing Principles

OBJECTIVE

We apply the high-reliability organization (HRO) paradigm to the diagnostic process, outlining challenges to enacting HRO principles in diagnosis and offering solutions for how diagnostic process stakeholders can overcome these barriers.

BACKGROUND

Evidence shows that healthcare is starting to organize for higher reliability by employing various principles and practices of HRO. These hold promise for enhancing safer care, but there has been little consideration of the challenges that clinicians and healthcare systems face while enacting HRO principles in the diagnostic process. To effectively deploy the HRO perspective, these barriers must be seriously considered.

METHOD

We review key principles of the HRO paradigm, the diagnostic errors and harms that potentially can be prevented by its enactment, the challenges that clinicians and healthcare systems face in executing various principles and practices, and possible solutions that clinicians and organizational leaders can take to overcome these challenges and barriers.

RESULTS

Our analyses reveal multiple challenges including the inherent diagnostic uncertainty; the lack of diagnosis-focused performance feedback; the fact that diagnosis is often a solo, rather than team, activity; the tendency to simplify the diagnostic process; and professional and institutional status hierarchies. But these challenges are not insurmountable-there are strategies and solutions available to overcome them.

CONCLUSION

The HRO lens offers some important ideas for how the safety of the diagnostic process can be improved.

APPLICATION

The ideas proposed here can be enacted by both individual clinicians and healthcare leaders; both are necessary for making systematic progress in enhancing diagnostic performance.

Measuring the Master Adaptive Learner: Development and Internal Structure Validity Evidence for a New Instrument

BACKGROUND

The master adaptive learner (MAL) uses self-regulated learning skills to develop adaptive, efficient, and accurate skills in practice. Given rapid changes in healthcare, it is essential that medical students develop into MALs. There is a need for an instrument that can capture MAL behaviors and characteristics. The objective of this study was to develop an instrument for measuring the MAL process in medical students and evaluate its psychometric properties.

METHODS

As part of curriculum evaluation, 818 students completed previously developed instruments with validity evidence including the Self-Regulated Learning Perception Scale, Brief Resilience Scale, Goal Orientation Scale, and Jefferson Scale of Physician Lifelong Learning. The authors performed exploratory factor analysis to examine underlying relationships between items. Items with high factor loadings were retained. Cronbach's alpha was computed. In parallel, the multi-institutional research team rated the same items to provide content validity evidence of the items to MAL model.

RESULTS

The original 67 items were reduced to 28 items loading onto four factors: Planning, Learning, Resilience, and Motivation. Each subscale included the following number of items and Cronbach's alpha: Planning (10 items, alpha = 0.88), Learning (6 items, alpha = 0.81), Resilience (6 items, alpha = 0.89), and Motivation (6 items, alpha = 0.81). The findings from the factor analyses aligned with the research team ratings of linkage to the components of MAL.

CONCLUSION

These findings serve as a starting point for future work measuring master adaptive learning to identify and support learners. To fully measure the MAL construct, additional items may need to be developed.

Using Peer Feedback to Promote Clinical Excellence in Hospital Medicine

Hospitalists provide a significant amount of direct clinical care in both academic and community hospitals. Peer feedback is a potentially underutilized and low resource method for improving clinical performance, which lends itself well to the frequent patient care handoffs that occur in the practice of hospital medicine. We review current literature on peer feedback to provide an overview of this performance improvement tool, briefly describe its incorporation into multi-source clinical performance appraisals across disciplines, highlight how peer feedback is currently used in hospital medicine, and present practical steps for hospital medicine programs to implement peer feedback to foster clinical excellence among their clinicians.

Role of Technology in Self-Assessment and Feedback Among Hospitalist Physicians: Semistructured Interviews and Thematic Analysis

Background

Lifelong learning is embedded in the culture of medicine, but there are limited tools currently available for many clinicians, including hospitalists, to help improve their own practice. Although there are requirements for continuing medical education, resources for learning new clinical guidelines, and developing fields aimed at facilitating peer-to-peer feedback, there is a gap in the availability of tools that enable clinicians to learn based on their own patients and clinical decisions.

Objective

The aim of this study was to explore the technologies or modifications to existing systems that could be used to benefit hospitalist physicians in pursuing self-assessment and improvement by understanding physicians’ current practices and their reactions to proposed possibilities.

Methods

Semistructured interviews were conducted in two separate stages with analysis performed after each stage. In the first stage, interviews (N=12) were conducted to understand the ways in which hospitalist physicians are currently gathering feedback and assessing their practice. A thematic analysis of these interviews informed the prototype used to elicit responses in the second stage.

Results

Clinicians actively look for feedback that they can apply to their practice, with the majority of the feedback obtained through self-assessment. The following three themes surrounding this aspect were identified in the first round of semistructured interviews: collaboration, self-reliance, and uncertainty, each with three related subthemes. Using a wireframe, the second round of interviews led to identifying the features that are currently challenging to use or could be made available with technology.

Conclusions

Based on each theme and subtheme, we provide targeted recommendations for use by relevant stakeholders such as institutions, clinicians, and technologists. Most hospitalist self-assessments occur on a rolling basis, specifically using data in electronic medical records as their primary source. Specific objective data points or subjective patient relationships lead clinicians to review their patient cases and to assess their own performance. However, current systems are not built for these analyses or for clinicians to perform self-assessment, making this a burdensome and incomplete process. Building a platform that focuses on providing and curating the information used for self-assessment could help physicians make more accurately informed changes to their own clinical practice and decision-making.

Exploring current physicians' failure to communicate clinical feedback back to transferring physicians after transitions of patient care responsibility: A mixed methods study

INTRODUCTION

After patient care transitions occur, communication from the current physician back to the transferring physician may be an important source of clinical feedback for learning from outcomes of previous reasoning processes. Factors associated with this communication are not well understood. This study clarifies how often, and for what reasons, current physicians do or do not communicate back to transferring physicians about transitioned patients.

METHODS

In 2018, 38 physicians at two academic teaching hospitals were interviewed about communication decisions regarding 618 transitioned patients. Researchers recorded quantitative and qualitative data in field notes, then coded communication rationales using directed content analysis. Descriptive statistics and mixed effects logistic regression analyses identified communication patterns and examined associations with communication for three conditions: When current physicians 1) changed transferring physicians' clinical decisions, 2) perceived transferring physicians' clinical uncertainty, and 3) perceived transferring physicians' request for communication.

RESULTS

Communication occurred regarding 17% of transitioned patients. Transferring physicians initiated communication in 55% of these cases. Communication did not occur when current physicians 1) changed transferring physicians' clinical decisions (119 patients), 2) perceived transferring physicians' uncertainty (97 patients), and 3) perceived transferring physicians' request for communication (12 patients). Rationales for no communication included case contextual, structural, interpersonal, and cultural factors. Perceived uncertainty and request for communication were positively associated with communication (p < 0.001) while a changed clinical decision was not.

DISCUSSION

Current physicians communicate infrequently with transferring physicians after assuming patient care responsibilities. Structural and interpersonal barriers to communication may be amenable to change. Clarity about transferring physicians' uncertainty and desire for communication back may improve clinical feedback communication.

Trainee and Program Director Perspectives on Meaningful Patient Attribution and Clinical Outcomes Data

BACKGROUND

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education specifies that trainees must receive clinical outcomes and quality benchmark data at specific levels related to institutional patient populations. Program directors (PDs) are challenged to identify meaningful data and provide them in formats acceptable to trainees.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to understand what types of patients, data/metrics, and data delivery systems trainees and PDs prefer for supplying trainees with clinical outcomes data.

METHODS

Trainees (n = 21) and PDs (n = 12) from multiple specialties participated in focus groups during academic year 2017-2018. They described key themes for providing clinical outcomes data to trainees.

RESULTS

Trainees and PDs differed in how they identified patients for clinical outcomes data for trainees. Trainees were interested in encounters where they felt a sense of responsibility or had autonomy/independent decision-making opportunities, continuity, or learned something new; PDs used broader criteria including all patients cared for by their trainees. Both groups thought trainees should be given trainee-level metrics and consistently highlighted the importance of comparison to peers and/or benchmarks. Both groups found value in "push" and "pull" data systems, although trainees wanted both, while PDs wanted one or the other. Both groups agreed that trainees should review data with specific faculty. Trainees expressed concern about being judged based on their patients' clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Trainee and PD perspectives on which patients they would like outcomes data for differed, but they overlapped for types of metrics, formats, and review processes for the data.

A view from the sender side of feedback: anticipated receptivity to clinical feedback when changing prior physicians' clinical decisions-a mixed methods study

When physicians transition patients, the physician taking over may change the diagnosis. Such a change could serve as an important source of clinical feedback to the prior physician. However, this feedback may not transpire if the current physician doubts the prior physician's receptivity to the information. This study explored facilitators of and barriers to feedback communication in the context of patient care transitions using an exploratory sequential, qualitative to quantitative, mixed methods design. Twenty-two internal medicine residents and hospitalist physicians from two teaching hospitals were interviewed and data were analyzed thematically. A prominent theme was participants' reluctance to communicate diagnostic changes. Participants perceived case complexity and physical proximity to facilitate, and hierarchy, unfamiliarity with the prior physician, and lack of relationship to inhibit communication. In the subsequent quantitative portion of the study, forty-one hospitalists completed surveys resulting in 923 total survey responses. Multivariable analyses and a mixed-effects model were applied to survey data with anticipated receptivity as the outcome variable. In the mixed-effects model, four factors had significant positive associations with receivers' perceived receptivity: (1) feedback senders' time spent on teaching services (β = 0.52, p = 0.02), (2) receivers' trustworthiness and clinical credibility (β = 0.49, p < 0.001), (3) preference of both for shared work rooms (β = 0.15, p = 0.006), and (4) receivers being peers (β = 0.24, p < 0.001) or junior colleagues (β = 0.39, p < 0.001). This study suggests that anticipated receptivity to feedback about changed clinical decisions affects clinical communication loops. Without trusting relationships and opportunities for low risk, casual conversations, hospitalists may avoid such conversations.