Who's on your team? Specialty identity and inter-physician conflict during admissions

Unravelling underlying processes in intraprofessional workplace learning in residency

BACKGROUND

To deliver high-quality collaborative care, residents need to be trained across the boundaries of their medical specialty (intraprofessional learning). The current literature does not provide insights into the underlying processes that influence intraprofessional learning. The aim of this study was to gain insight into the processes that occur during intraprofessional workplace learning in residency training, by exploring everyday intraprofessional interactions experienced by residents, with the ultimate objective of improving collaborative practice.

METHOD

We conducted a focused ethnography using field observations and in-depth interviews with residents at an academic children's hospital in the Netherlands. In 2022, nine residents from four different medical specialties were shadowed and/or interviewed. In total, >120 hours of observation and 10 interviews were conducted. Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively and discussed in a research team with diverse perspectives, as well as with a sounding board group of stakeholders.

RESULTS

Residents were involved in numerous intraprofessional interactions as part of their daily work. We identified three themes that shed light on the underlying processes that occur during intraprofessional workplace learning: (1) residents' agency, (2) ingroups and outgroups and (3) communication about intraprofessional collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaborative practice offers many intraprofessional learning opportunities but does not automatically result in learning from, with and about other specialties to improve intraprofessional collaborative care. Overarching the identified themes, we emphasise the pivotal role of the resident-supervisor dyad in facilitating residents' engagement in the learning opportunities of complex intraprofessional care. Furthermore, we propose that promoting deliberate practice and shared responsibility in collaborative care are crucial to better prepare residents for their roles and responsibilities in delivering high-quality collaborative patient care.

Conflict in emergency medicine: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The emergency department (ED) is a demanding and time-pressured environment where doctors must navigate numerous team interactions. Conflicts between health care professionals frequently arise in these settings. We aim to synthesize the individual-, team-, and systemic-level factors that contribute to conflict between clinicians within the ED and explore strategies and opportunities for future research.

METHODS

Online databases PubMed and Web of Science were systematically searched for relevant peer-reviewed journal articles in English with keywords relating to "conflict" and "emergency department," yielding a total of 29 articles.

RESULTS

Narrative analysis showed that conflict often occurred during referrals or admissions from ED to inpatient or admitting units. Individual-level contributors to conflict include a lack of trust in ED workup and staff inexperience. Team-level contributors include perceptions of bias between groups, patient complexity, communication errors, and difference in practice. Systems-level contributors include high workload/time pressures, ambiguities around patient responsibility, power imbalances, and workplace culture. Among identified solutions to mitigate conflict are better communication training, standardizing admission guidelines, and improving interdepartmental relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

In emergency medicine, conflict is common and occurs at multiple levels, reflecting the complex interface of tasks and relationships within ED.

Assertiveness as a tool to prevent and mitigate inter-physician conflict

Amick and Schrepel comment on the value of incorporating assertiveness into best practices for inter‐physician communication and conflict mitigation.

"Ego massaging that helps": a framework analysis study of internal medicine trainees' interprofessional collaboration approaches

INTRODUCTION

Patient care depends on collaborative practice. Debate remains as to the best approach to providing education for collaboration, with educational interventions often far removed from the realities of the clinical workplace. Understanding the approaches used for collaboration in clinical practice could inform practical strategies for training. For internal medicine trainees, this involves collaboration with other professions but also with other specialties. This study aimed to explore the approaches that internal medicine trainees use for interprofessional collaboration and the ways that these approaches vary when internal medicine trainees interact with different healthcare provider groups.

METHODS

Following ethical approval and participant consent, interprofessional communication workshops between August 2020 and March 2021 were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Workshops involved groups of internal medicine trainees discussing collaboration challenges and the approaches they use in clinical practice. This framework analysis study used the interprofessional collaboration framework described by Bainbridge and Regehr (building social capital, perspective taking and negotiating priorities and resources), and cross-referenced the categorised data with the healthcare groups that trainees collaborate with, to look for patterns in the data.

RESULTS

Seventeen workshops, involving 100 trainees, were included. Trainees described relationship building, perspective taking and negotiating priorities and resources. Relationship building was a modification to the original framework domain of building social capital. Themes of power and civility transcended domains with evidence of using hierarchy as leverage when negotiating and employing civility as a tactical approach throughout.

DISCUSSION

This bi-dimensional analysis highlights patterns of perspective taking when collaborating with other specialties and professions, and the approaches to negotiation of courting favour and coercion when interacting with other specialties. This study provides evidence of the strategies currently utilised by internal medicine trainees, with different healthcare groups, and presents a modified framework which could inform the development of training for collaboration.

From Battles to Burnout: Investigating the Role of Interphysician Conflict in Physician Burnout

PURPOSE

Despite the recognized importance of collaborative communication among physicians, conflict at transitions of care remains a pervasive issue. Recent work has underscored how poor communication can undermine patient safety and organizational efficiency, yet little is known about how interphysician conflict (I-PC) impacts the physicians forced to navigate these tensions. The goal of this study was to explore the social processes and interpersonal interactions surrounding I-PC and their impact, using conversations regarding admission between internal medicine (IM) and emergency medicine (EM) as a lens to explore I-PC in clinical practice.

METHOD

The authors used constructivist grounded theory to explore the interpersonal and social dynamics of I-PC. They used purposive sampling to recruit participants, including EM resident and attending physicians and IM attending physicians. The authors conducted hour-long, semistructured interviews between June and October 2020 using the Zoom video conferencing platform. Interviews were coded in 3 phases: initial line-by-line coding, focused coding, and recording. Constant comparative analysis was used to refine emerging codes, and the interview guide was iteratively updated.

RESULTS

The authors interviewed 18 residents and attending physicians about how engaging in I-PC led to both personal and professional harm. Specifically, physicians described how I-PC resulted in emotional distress, demoralization, diminished sense of professional attributes, and job dissatisfaction. Participants also described how emotional residue attached to past I-PC events primed the workplace for future conflict.

CONCLUSIONS

I-PC may represent a serious yet underrecognized source of harm, not only to patient safety but also to physician well-being. Participants described both the personal and professional consequences of I-PC, which align with the core tenets of burnout. Burnout is a well-established threat to the physician workforce, but unlike many other contributors to burnout, I-PC may be modifiable through improved education that equips physicians with the skills to navigate I-PC throughout their careers.

MONitoring Knockbacks in EmergencY (MONKEY) – An Audit of Disposition Outcomes in Emergency Patients with Rejected Admission Requests

Background

Emergency Department (ED) clinicians commonly experience difficulties in referring patients to inpatient teams for hospital admission. There is limited literature reporting on patient outcomes following these complicated referrals, where ED requests for inpatient admission are rejected – which study investigators termed a “knockback”.

Purpose

To identify disposition outcomes and referral accuracy in ED patients whose admission referral was initially rejected. Secondary objectives were to identify additional patient, clinician and systemic factors associated with knockbacks.

Selection and Methodology

Emergency clinicians prospectively nominated a convenience sample of patients identified as having knockbacks over two time periods (Jan–Feb 2020 and Aug 2020 to Jan 2021) at a tertiary Australian ED. Data were analyzed with a mixed-methods approach and subsequent descriptive and thematic analyses were performed.

Results

A total of 109 patients were identified as knockbacks. The referrals were warranted, with 89.0% of cases (n = 97) ultimately requiring a hospital admission. In 60.6% (n = 66) of the admissions, patients were admitted under the inpatient team initially referred to by the ED, suggesting referrals were generally accurate. The number of in-hospital units involved in the admission process and ED length of stay were positively correlated (0.409, p < 0.001). Patient factors associated with knockbacks include pre-existing chronic medical conditions and presenting acutely unwell. Analysis of clinicians’ perspectives yielded recurring themes of disagreements over admission destination and diagnostic uncertainty.

Conclusion

In this patient sample, emergency referrals for admission were mostly warranted and accurate. Knockbacks increase ED length of stay and may adversely affect patient care. Further focused discussion and clearer referral guidelines between ED clinicians and their inpatient colleagues are required.