Who's My Doctor? First-Year Residents and Patient Care: Hospitalized Patients' Perception of Their "Main Physician"

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS): Assessing patient satisfaction and socioemotional benefits in the hospital setting

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is an imaging modality used to make expedient patient care decisions at bedside. Though its diagnostic utility has been extensively described, POCUS is not yet considered standard of care in inpatient settings. Data from emergency department settings suggest that POCUS may yield socioemotional benefits beyond its diagnostic utility; furthermore, elements of the POCUS experience are known to promote placebo effects. These elements likely contribute to a placebo-like "POCUS positive care effect" (PPCE) with socioemotional benefits for receptive patients. Our objective is to provide the first characterization of the PPCE and its facilitating factors in an inpatient setting. In this novel mixed-methods study, we recruited 30 adult patients admitted to internal medicine floors in an urban academic medical center, recorded observations during their routine POCUS encounters, and administered post-encounter surveys. We conducted complementary quantitative and qualitative analyses to define and assess the magnitude of the PPCE. We also aimed to identify factors associated with and facilitating receptiveness to the PPCE. The results indicated that POCUS improves patients' satisfaction with their hospital providers and care overall, as well as perceived care efficiency. Mutual engagement, strong therapeutic alliances, and interpreting POCUS images to provide reassurance are most closely associated with this PPCE. Patients who have lower anxiety levels, less severe illness, and received efficient care delivery during their hospitalizations are most receptive to the PPCE. We conclude that diagnostic POCUS has the potential to exert a positive care effect for hospitalized patients. This PPCE is associated with modifiable factors at the patient, provider, and environment levels. Together, our findings lay the groundwork for an optimized "therapeutic POCUS" that yields maximal socioemotional benefits for receptive patients.

Response of US psychiatric programs to the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact on trainees

BACKGROUND

Medical training program and hospital response to the COVID-19 pandemic has varied greatly and has impacted trainee well-being. Which factors have specifically related to trainee wellness, however, has not yet been examined in depth. The aim of the study was to understand trainee perspectives on the individual psychiatry trainee programs' hospitals' objective COVID-19 preparedness management. We also sought and to gauge how program changes, and general pandemic-related concerns, have been associated with trainee satisfaction and burnout.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey study of psychiatric trainees was distributed electronically throughout the country via various psychiatry residency program listservs in April 2020. Statistical analyses were performed utilizing simple linear regression.

RESULTS

From 352 respondents (346 complete responses and 6 partial responses), the most frequent program changes were "decreased number of rotations requiring in-person patient care" and "increased call hours or duties." Of pandemic-related concerns surveyed, the two greatest were "spreading COVID-19 to family/friends" and "co-residents' burnout and anxiety." A positive relationship was found between trainee satisfaction with perceived COVID-19 departmental response and comfort level of residents/fellows in expressing concerns with attending clinicians and department leadership.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, trainees have experienced a variety of changes to trainee program policies and guidelines. Overall, poor communication and trainee dissatisfaction with departmental response correlated with concern of infection and anxiety/burnout. Insights garnered from this study could provide scaffolding for the best practices to reduce trainee physician anxiety/burnout for the current and future pandemics of this variety and magnitude.

Level of patients' knowledge, confidence, and acceptance regarding the role of residents in a family medicine teaching clinic

BACKGROUND

Although participation of patients is essential for completing the training of medical residents, little is known about the relationships among patients' level of knowledge about the role and responsibilities of medical residents, their confidence in residents' abilities, and their acceptance toward receiving care from residents. The study sought to clarify if and how these three patient-resident relationship components are interrelated.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire distributed in 2016 to a convenience sample of adult patients (≥ 18 years old) visiting a family medicine teaching clinic. Proportions and chi-square statistics were used to describe and compare groups, respectively.

RESULTS

Of the 471 patients who answered the questionnaire, only 28% were found to be knowledgeable about the role of family medicine residents. Between 54% and 83% of patients reported being highly confident in the ability of residents to perform five routine tasks. Of the patients surveyed, 69% agreed to see a resident during their next appointments. Patients with a high level of confidence in residents' abilities were more likely to agree to see a resident during future appointments (p <0.0001). There was no significant association between level of knowledge and either confidence or acceptance.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the majority of patients had poor knowledge about the role of residents, this was not related to their acceptance of being cared for by residents. A higher level of confidence in residents' ability to perform certain tasks was associated with greater acceptance toward seeing a resident during future appointments.

Impact of Hospitalist Team Structure on Patient-Reported Satisfaction with Physician Performance

BACKGROUND

Patient experience is valuable because it reflects how patients perceive the care they receive within the healthcare system and is associated with clinical outcomes. Also, as part of the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rewards hospitals with financial incentives for patient experience as measured by the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey. It is unclear how the addition of residents and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) to hospitalist-led inpatient teams affects patient satisfaction as measured by the HCAHPS and Press Ganey survey.

OBJECTIVE

To compare patient satisfaction with hospitalists on resident, APC, and solo hospitalist teams measured by HCAHPS and Press Ganey physician performance domain survey results.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients discharged from the Internal Medicine inpatient service between July 1, 2015, and July 1, 2018, who met HCAHPS survey eligibility criteria and completed a patient experience survey.

MAIN MEASURES

HCAHPS and Press Ganey physician performance domain survey results.

KEY RESULTS

No differences were observed in the selection of "top box" scores on the HCAHPS physician performance domain between resident, APC, and solo hospitalist teams. Adjusted Press Ganey physician performance domain survey results demonstrated significant differences between solo hospitalist and resident teams, with solo hospitalists having higher scores in three areas: time physician spent with you (4.58 vs. 4.38, p = 0.050); physician kept you informed (4.63 vs. 4.43, p = 0.047); and physician skill (4.80 vs. 4.63, p = 0.027). Solo hospitalists were perceived to have higher physician skill in comparison with hospitalist-APC teams (4.80 vs. 4.69, p = 0.042).

CONCLUSION

While Press Ganey survey results suggest that patients have greater satisfaction with physicians on solo hospitalist teams, these differences were not observed on the HCAHPS physician performance survey domain, suggesting physician team structure does not impact HVBP incentive payments by CMS.

The Association Between Residency Learning Climate and Inpatient Care Experience in Clinical Teaching Departments in the Netherlands

PURPOSE

To examine the association between residency learning climate and inpatient care experience.

METHOD

The authors analyzed 1,201 evaluations of the residency learning climate (using the Dutch Residency Educational Climate Test questionnaire) and 6,689 evaluations of inpatient care experience (using the Consumer Quality Index Inpatient Hospital Care questionnaire) from 86 departments across 15 specialties in 18 hospitals in the Netherlands between 2013 and 2014. The authors used linear hierarchical panel analyses to study the associations between departments' overall and subscale learning climate scores and inpatient care experience global ratings and subscale scores, controlling for respondent- and department-level characteristics and correcting for multiple testing.

RESULTS

Overall learning climate was not associated with global department ratings (b = 0.03; 95% confidence interval -0.17 to 0.23) but was positively associated with specific inpatient care experience domains, including communication with doctors (b = 0.11; 0.02 to 0.20) and feeling of safety (b = 0.09; 0.01 to 0.17). Coaching and assessment was positively associated with communication with doctors (b = 0.22; 0.08 to 0.37) and explanation of treatment (b = 0.22; 0.08 to 0.36). Formal education was negatively associated with pain management (b = -0.16; -0.26 to -0.05), while peer collaboration was positively associated with pain management (b = 0.14; 0.03 to 0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Optimizing the clinical learning environment is an important step toward ensuring high-quality residency training and patient care. These findings could help clinical teaching departments address those aspects of the learning environment that directly affect patient care.

Meet your surgical team: The impact of a resident-led quality improvement project on patient satisfaction

BACKGROUND

Patients often have an incomplete understanding of the levels of training and roles of the various surgical providers in teaching hospitals, leading to patient confusion and dissatisfaction.

METHODS

Pre-intervention discharge surveys were administered to gastrointestinal surgery inpatients (10/2016-02/2017) to evaluate sentiments regarding their surgical team. During the intervention period (02/2017-05/2017), patients at admission received "facesheets" containing team member profiles, photos, training level, and roles. These patients were evaluated using the survey, and pre- and post-intervention scores compared.

RESULTS

153 pre- and 100 post-intervention surveys were collected. There was a significant increase in patients reporting it was important to know the surgical team members and that they knew team member roles (p ≤ 0.05). Scores in every domain of the satisfaction survey improved in the post-intervention period, although not reaching statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving how patients perceive their interactions with their surgical team has implications on patient satisfaction and hospital quality metrics.

Assessing residents' knowledge of patient satisfaction: a cross-sectional study at a large academic medical centre

OBJECTIVES

Patient satisfaction impacts healthcare quality and outcomes. Residents play an important role in patient satisfaction at academic institutions. This study aims to assess residents' patient satisfaction knowledge and determine which learning experiences contributed to their knowledge acquisition.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a health science university in a large, urban, tertiary-care academic medical centre in the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

All residents from internal medicine (n=185) and paediatrics (n=156) were asked to participate.

DESIGN

Residents completed a survey from April 2013 to December 2013 that assessed (1) knowledge of factors that impact patient satisfaction and (2) learning experiences that may have contributed to their understanding of the drivers of patient satisfaction (eg, experiential (personal or clinical) or didactics). Trainees identified the importance of factors in determining patient satisfaction on a five-point Likert scale; answers were compiled into a knowledge score. The score was correlated with prior personal/clinical experience and didactics.

RESULTS

Of the 341 residents, 247 (72%) completed the survey. No difference was found in knowledge among training levels or residency programme. More than 50% incorrectly thought physician board certification, patient's education, patient's income and physician's age impacted satisfaction. Personal experience, through hospitalisation of a relative or friend, was correlated with higher knowledge (67% vs 71%, p=0.03). Ninety-nine per cent (n=238) stated peer observation, and all stated faculty feedback impacted their patient satisfaction knowledge. Seventy-seven per cent (n=185) had attended didactics on satisfaction, but attendance did not correlate with higher scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed trainees have a few gaps in their patient satisfaction knowledge, and attending past educational sessions on patient satisfaction did not correlate with higher knowledge scores. Our data suggest that academic centres should leverage residents' personal experiences, their observations of peers and faculty feedback to enhance patient satisfaction knowledge.

'Please don't call me Mister': patient preferences of how they are addressed and their knowledge of their treating medical team in an Australian hospital

OBJECTIVES

To investigate how patients prefer to be addressed by healthcare providers and to assess their knowledge of their attending medical team's identity in an Australian Hospital.

SETTING

Single-centre, large tertiary hospital in Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

300 inpatients were included in the survey. Patients were selected in a sequential, systematic and whole-ward manner. Participants were excluded with significant cognitive impairment, non-English speaking, under the age of 18 years or were too acutely unwell to participate. The sample demographic was predominately an older population of Anglo-Saxon background.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients preferred mode of address from healthcare providers including first name, title and second name, abbreviated first name or another name. Whether patients disliked formal address of title and second name. Secondarily, patient knowledge of their attending medical team members name and role and if correct, what position within the medical hierarchy they held.

RESULTS

Over 99% of patients prefer informal address with greater than one-third having a preference to being called a name other than their legal first name. 57% of patients were unable to correctly name a single member of their attending medical team.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support patient preference of informal address; however, healthcare providers cannot assume that a documented legal first name is preferred by the patient. Patient knowledge of their attending medical team is poor and suggests current introduction practices are insufficient.

Feasibility and validation of real-time patient evaluations of internal medicine interns' communication and professionalism skills

BACKGROUND

Residents receive little information about how they interact with patients.

OBJECTIVE

This pilot study assessed the feasibility and validity of a new 16-item tool developed to assess patients' perspectives of interns' communication skills and professionalism and the team's communication.

METHODS

Feasibility was determined by the percentage of surveys completed, the average time for survey completion, the percentage of target interns evaluated, and the mean number of evaluations per intern. Generalizability was analyzed using an (evaluator:evaluatee) × item model. Simulated D studies estimated optimal numbers of items and evaluators. Factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to examine the structure of the items. Scores were correlated with other measures of communication and professionalism for validation.

RESULTS

Most patients (225 of 305 [74%]) completed the evaluation. Each survey took approximately 6.3 minutes to complete. In 43 days over 18 weeks, 45 of 50 interns (90%) were evaluated an average of 4.6 times. Fifty evaluations would be required to reach a minimally acceptable coefficient (0.57). Two factor structures were identified. The evaluation did not correlate with faculty evaluations of resident communication but did correlate weakly (r  =  0.140, P  =  .04) with standardized patient evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

A large number of patient evaluations are needed to reliably assess intern and team communication skills. Evaluations by patients add a perspective in assessing these skills that is different from those of faculty evaluations. Future work will focus on whether this new information adds to existing evaluation systems and warrants the added effort.