Search

Abstract In Arabidopsis thaliana we demonstrate that dying root hairs provide an easy and rapid in vivo model for the morphological identification of apoptotic-like programmed cell death (AL-PCD) in plants. The model described here is transferable between species, can be used to investigate rates of AL-PCD in response to various treatments and to identify modulation of AL-PCD rates in mutant/transgenic plant lines facilitating rapid screening of mutant populations in order to identify genes involved in AL-PCD regulation.

Importance: Residents must prepare for effective communication with patients after medical errors. The video-based communication assessment (VCA) is software that plays video of a patient scenario, asks the physician to record what they would say, engages crowdsourced laypeople to rate audio recordings of physician responses, and presents feedback to physicians., Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of VCA feedback in resident error disclosure skill training., Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-blinded, randomized clinical trial was conducted from July 2022 to May 2023 at 7 US internal medicine and family medicine residencies (10 total sites). Participants were second-year residents attending required teaching conferences. Data analysis was performed from July to December 2023., Intervention: Residents completed 2 VCA cases at time 1 and were randomized to the intervention, an individual feedback report provided in the VCA application after 2 weeks, or to control, in which feedback was not provided until after time 2. Residents completed 2 additional VCA cases after 4 weeks (time 2)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Panels of crowdsourced laypeople rated recordings of residents disclosing simulated medical errors to create scores on a 5-point scale. Reports included learning points derived from layperson comments. Mean time 2 ratings were compared to test the hypothesis that residents who had access to feedback on their time 1 performance would score higher at time 2 than those without feedback access. Residents were surveyed about demographic characteristics, disclosure experience, and feedback use. The intervention's effect was examined using analysis of covariance., Results: A total of 146 residents (87 [60.0%] aged 25-29 years; 60 female [41.0%]) completed the time 1 VCA, and 103 (70.5%) completed the time 2 VCA (53 randomized to intervention and 50 randomized to control); of those, 28 (54.9%) reported reviewing their feedback. Analysis of covariance found a significant main effect of feedback between intervention and control groups at time 2 (mean [SD] score, 3.26 [0.45] vs 3.14 [0.39]; difference, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.08-0.48; P = .01). In post hoc comparisons restricted to residents without prior disclosure experience, intervention residents scored higher than those in the control group at time 2 (mean [SD] score, 3.33 [0.43] vs 3.09 [0.44]; difference, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.01-0.48; P = .007). Worse performance at time 1 was associated with increased likelihood of dropping out before time 2 (odds ratio, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.06-7.84; P = .04)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, self-directed review of crowdsourced feedback was associated with higher ratings of internal medicine and family medicine residents' error disclosure skill, particularly for those without real-life error disclosure experience, suggesting that such feedback may be an effective way for residency programs to address their requirement to prepare trainees for communicating with patients after medical harm., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06234085.

Background: US residents require practice and feedback to meet Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandates and patient expectations for effective communication after harmful errors. Current instructional approaches rely heavily on lectures, rarely provide individualized feedback to residents about communication skills, and may not assure that residents acquire the skills desired by patients. The Video-based Communication Assessment (VCA) app is a novel tool for simulating communication scenarios for practice and obtaining crowdsourced assessments and feedback on physicians' communication skills. We previously established that crowdsourced laypeople can reliably assess residents' error disclosure skills with the VCA app. However, its efficacy for error disclosure training has not been tested., Objective: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of using VCA practice and feedback as a stand-alone intervention for the development of residents' error disclosure skills., Methods: We conducted a pre-post study in 2020 with pathology, obstetrics and gynecology, and internal medicine residents at an academic medical center in the United States. At baseline, residents each completed 2 specialty-specific VCA cases depicting medical errors. Audio responses were rated by at least 8 crowdsourced laypeople using 6 items on a 5-point scale. At 4 weeks, residents received numerical and written feedback derived from layperson ratings and then completed 2 additional cases. Residents were randomly assigned cases at baseline and after feedback assessments to avoid ordinal effects. Ratings were aggregated to create overall assessment scores for each resident at baseline and after feedback. Residents completed a survey of demographic characteristics. We used a 2×3 split-plot ANOVA to test the effects of time (pre-post) and specialty on communication ratings., Results: In total, 48 residents completed 2 cases at time 1, received a feedback report at 4 weeks, and completed 2 more cases. The mean ratings of residents' communication were higher at time 2 versus time 1 (3.75 vs 3.53; P<.001). Residents with prior error disclosure experience performed better at time 1 compared to those without such experience (ratings: mean 3.63 vs mean 3.46; P=.02). No differences in communication ratings based on specialty or years in training were detected. Residents' communication was rated higher for angry cases versus sad cases (mean 3.69 vs mean 3.58; P=.01). Less than half of all residents (27/62, 44%) reported prior experience with disclosing medical harm to patients; experience differed significantly among specialties (P<.001) and was lowest for pathology (1/17, 6%)., Conclusions: Residents at all training levels can potentially improve error disclosure skills with VCA practice and feedback. Error disclosure curricula should prepare residents for responding to various patient affects. Simulated error disclosure may particularly benefit trainees in diagnostic specialties, such as pathology, with infrequent real-life error disclosure practice opportunities. Future research should examine the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of VCA within a longitudinal error disclosure curriculum., (©Andrew A White, Ann M King, Angelo E D’Addario, Karen Berg Brigham, Suzanne Dintzis, Emily E Fay, Thomas H Gallagher, Kathleen M Mazor. Originally published in JMIR Medical Education (https://mededu.jmir.org), 03.10.2022.)

Objectives: We aim to assess the influence of COVID-19 on the social needs of emergency department (ED) patients, and assess patients' access to social services., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 175 purposively sampled adult ED patients., Results: Approximately half of participants stated that COVID-19 negatively impacted their social needs with statistically significant differences observed for race, ethnicity, and insurance status. Many participants did not know of available social services, and a majority welcomed assistance from the ED., Conclusion: This study suggests that unmet social needs have risen because of COVID-19, and EDs may be positioned to identify and assist affected patients., Competing Interests: No competing financial interests exist., (© Timothy H. Gallagher et al., 2022; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.)

Background: Residents may benefit from simulated practice with personalized feedback to prepare for high-stakes disclosure conversations with patients after harmful errors and to meet American Council on Graduate Medical Education mandates. Ideally, feedback would come from patients who have experienced communication after medical harm, but medical researchers and leaders have found it difficult to reach this community, which has made this approach impractical at scale. The Video-Based Communication Assessment app is designed to engage crowdsourced laypeople to rate physician communication skills but has not been evaluated for use with medical harm scenarios., Objective: We aimed to compare the reliability of 2 assessment groups (crowdsourced laypeople and patient advocates) in rating physician error disclosure communication skills using the Video-Based Communication Assessment app., Methods: Internal medicine residents used the Video-Based Communication Assessment app; the case, which consisted of 3 sequential vignettes, depicted a delayed diagnosis of breast cancer. Panels of patient advocates who have experienced harmful medical error, either personally or through a family member, and crowdsourced laypeople used a 5-point scale to rate the residents' error disclosure communication skills (6 items) based on audiorecorded responses. Ratings were aggregated across items and vignettes to create a numerical communication score for each physician. We used analysis of variance, to compare stringency, and Pearson correlation between patient advocates and laypeople, to identify whether rank order would be preserved between groups. We used generalizability theory to examine the difference in assessment reliability between patient advocates and laypeople., Results: Internal medicine residents (n=20) used the Video-Based Communication Assessment app. All patient advocates (n=8) and 42 of 59 crowdsourced laypeople who had been recruited provided complete, high-quality ratings. Patient advocates rated communication more stringently than crowdsourced laypeople (patient advocates: mean 3.19, SD 0.55; laypeople: mean 3.55, SD 0.40; P<.001), but patient advocates' and crowdsourced laypeople's ratings of physicians were highly correlated (r=0.82, P<.001). Reliability for 8 raters and 6 vignettes was acceptable (patient advocates: G coefficient 0.82; crowdsourced laypeople: G coefficient 0.65). Decision studies estimated that 12 crowdsourced layperson raters and 9 vignettes would yield an acceptable G coefficient of 0.75., Conclusions: Crowdsourced laypeople may represent a sustainable source of reliable assessments of physician error disclosure skills. For a simulated case involving delayed diagnosis of breast cancer, laypeople correctly identified high and low performers. However, at least 12 raters and 9 vignettes are required to ensure adequate reliability and future studies are warranted. Crowdsourced laypeople rate less stringently than raters who have experienced harm. Future research should examine the value of the Video-Based Communication Assessment app for formative assessment, summative assessment, and just-in-time coaching of error disclosure communication skills., (©Andrew A White, Ann M King, Angelo E D’Addario, Karen Berg Brigham, Suzanne Dintzis, Emily E Fay, Thomas H Gallagher, Kathleen M Mazor. Originally published in JMIR Medical Education (https://mededu.jmir.org), 29.04.2022.)

Purpose. We investigated how health care systems should communicate with patients about possible exposures to blood-borne pathogens that may have occurred during their care. Our goal was to determine how best to communicate uncertain risk information in a way that would minimize harm to patients, maintain their trust, and encourage patients to seek follow-up treatment. Methods. Participants ( N = 1103) were randomized to receive one of six vignette surveys; 997 (98.4%) responded. All vignettes described the same event, but differed by risk level and recommendations (lower risk v. higher risk) and by communication mode (telephone, letter, social media). We measured participants' perceived risk of blood-borne infection, trust in the health care system, and shared decision making about next clinical steps. Open-ended questions were analyzed using grounded thematic analysis. Results. When the vignette requested patients to undergo testing and practice certain health behaviors (higher risk), participants' likelihood of seeking follow-up testing for blood-borne pathogens and their understanding of health issues increased. Perceived trust was unaffected by risk level or communication processes. Qualitative data indicated a desire for telephone communication from providers known to the patient. Limitations. It is not clear whether higher risk language or objective risk levels in vignettes motivated patients' behavioral intentions. Conclusion. Using higher risk language when disclosing large-scale adverse events increased participants' willingness to seek follow-up care. Implications. Health care organizations' disclosures should focus on the next steps to take after health care exposures. This communication should involve helping patients to understand their personal health issues better, make them feel that they know which steps to take following the receipt of this information, and encouraging them to seek follow-up infectious disease testing in order to better take care of themselves., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The following authors are currently employed by the sponsor (funding agency): AR Elwy, EM Maguire, SM Asch, JM Durfee, BG Bokhour, AL Gifford, TJ Taylor, and TH Wagner., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Background: Recent attention has been given to developing measures to capture the quality of ED transitions of care. We examined the utility of a patient-reported measure of transitional care, the Care Transitions Measure-3 (CTM-3), in the ED setting and its association with outcomes of care after ED discharge., Methods: A telephone survey was conducted of a convenience sample of patients 14 days after discharge from two emergency departments (EDs) in an academic health system. Patients responded to three statements using a four-point agreement scale (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree): 1) "The hospital staff took my preferences and those of my family or caregiver into account when deciding what my health care needs would be"; 2) " When I left the ER, I had a good understanding of the things I was responsible for in managing my health"; and 3) "When I left the hospital, I clearly understood the purpose for taking each of my medications." Patients were also queried about outcomes after ED discharge that are known to be related to ED care transitions including medication adherence, completion of recommended follow-up, and return visits to the ED. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association between the CTM-3 score (on a 100-point scale) and outcomes of interest., Results: Among 1,832 patients called, 576 were reached by phone, and 410 consented and completed our survey, representing a 22.4% response rate of patients we attempted to call. A 10-point increase in the CTM-3 score (better care experiences) was associated with a 12% decrease in the odds of having an ED return visit (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.77-1.00) and a 45% increase in the odds of taking prescribed medications as recommended (AOR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.12-1.87). There was no association between CTM-3 score and completion of follow-up., Conclusions: The CTM-3 is associated with outcomes of care after an ED visit, including ED return visits and medication adherence, and may have utility as a patient-reported measure of ED transitions of care., (© 2018 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Context: - Medical errors are unfortunately common. The US Institute of Medicine proposed guidelines for mitigating and disclosing errors. Implementing these recommendations in pathology will require a better understanding of how errors occur in pathology, the relationship between pathologists and treating clinicians in reducing error, and pathologists' experiences with and attitudes toward disclosure of medical error., Objective: - To understand pathologists' attitudes toward disclosing pathology error to treating clinicians and patients., Design: - We conducted 5 structured focus groups in Washington State and Missouri with 45 pathologists in academic and community practice. Participants were questioned about pathology errors, how clinicians respond to pathology errors, and what roles pathologists should play in error disclosure to patients., Results: - These pathologists believe that neither treating physicians nor patients understand the subtleties and limitations of pathologic diagnoses, which complicates discussions about pathology errors. Pathologists' lack of confidence in communication skills and fear of being misrepresented or misunderstood are major barriers to their participation in disclosure discussions. Pathologists see potential for their future involvement in disclosing error to patients, but at present advocate reliance on treating clinicians to disclose pathology errors to patients. Most group members believed that going forward pathologists should offer to participate more actively in error disclosure to patients., Conclusions: - Pathologists lack confidence in error disclosure communication skills with both treating physicians and patients. Improved communication between pathologists and treating physicians could enhance transparency and promote disclosure of pathology errors. Consensus guidelines for best practices in pathology error disclosure may be useful.

Objective: To implement a communication-and-resolution program (CRP) in a setting in which liability insurers and health care facilities must collaborate to resolve incidents involving a facility and separately insured clinicians., Study Setting: Six hospitals and clinics and a liability insurer in Washington State., Study Design: Sites designed and implemented CRPs and contributed information about cases and operational challenges over 20 months. Data were qualitatively analyzed., Data Collection Methods: Data from interviews with personnel responsible for CRP implementation were triangulated with data on program cases collected by sites and notes recorded during meetings with sites and among project team members., Principal Findings: Sites experienced small victories in resolving particular cases and streamlining some working relationships, but they were unable to successfully implement a collaborative CRP. Barriers included the insurer's distance from the point of care, passive rather than active support from top leaders, coordinating across departments and organizations, workload, nonparticipation by some physicians, and overcoming distrust., Conclusions: Operating CRPs where multiple organizations must collaborate can be highly challenging. Success likely requires several preconditions, including preexisting trust among organizations, active leadership engagement, physicians' commitment to participate, mechanisms for quickly transmitting information to insurers, tolerance for missteps, and clear protocols for joint investigations and resolutions., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Importance: Patient safety experts believe that patients/family members should be involved in adverse event review. However, it is unclear how aware patients/family members are about the causes of adverse events they experienced., Objective: To determine whether patients/family members interviewed could identify at least one contributing factor for the event they experienced. Secondary objectives included understanding the way patients/family members became aware of adverse events, the types of contributing factors patients/family members identified for different types of adverse events, and recommendations provided by patients/family members to address the contributing factors., Design: We interviewed patients/family members using semistructured interviews to understand their perceptions about why these adverse events occurred. The adverse events occurred between 1991 and 2014., Setting: Participants described adverse events that occurred in various types of health care organizations (i.e., hospitals, ambulatory facilities/clinics, and dental clinics)., Participants: We interviewed 72 patients and family members who each described a unique adverse event. Eligibility requirements were that patients/family members spoke English or Spanish and were aware of an adverse event that happened to them or a loved one. INTERVENTION(S) FOR CLINICAL TRIALS OR EXPOSURE(S) FOR OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES: N/A., Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): The main outcome was determining whether patients/family members could identify at least one contributing factor they perceived as related to the adverse event they described., Results: Each participant identified at least one contributing factor and on average identified 3.67 contributing factors for their event. The most frequently mentioned contributing factors were Staff Qualifications/Knowledge (79 percent), Safety Policies/Procedures (74 percent), and Communication (64 percent). Participants knew about the contributing factors from personal observation only (32 percent), personal reasoning (11 percent), personal research (7 percent), record review (either their own medical records or reports they received in their own investigation; 6 percent), and being told by a physician (5 percent). Finally, patients/family members were able to provide recommendations that address each of the nine contributing factors we examined., Conclusions and Relevance: Patients/family members identified contributing factors related to their adverse event. Given that these contributing factors might not be known to health care organizations because most participants stated that they were not involved in the analysis process, opportunities for organizational learning from patients are potentially being missed. Health care organizations should interview patients/family about the event that harmed them to help ensure a full understanding of the causes of the event., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Objective: Communication and resolution programs (CRPs) involve institutions responding to adverse events using transparency with patients, event analysis, recurrence prevention, and compensation. Collaboration with regulators around CRPs could enhance health care quality., Setting and Participants: Health care institutions, liability insurers, and the Medical Quality Assurance Commission (MQAC, board of medicine) in Washington State., Study Design: MQAC has collaborated with the Foundation for Health Care Quality (FHCQ) on the CRP Certification pilot. A panel of physicians, risk managers, and patient advocates at FHCQ will review cases for use of the CRP key elements. Cases meeting this standard will be "CRP Certified." If MQAC determines that the CRP enhanced patient safety comparable or better than board action, the Commission may close the case., Principal Findings: Developing this process identified the following issues: (1) protecting information submitted for CRP Certification; (2) determining what information the Commission needs to assess whether additional investigation is warranted; (3) preserving the Commission's responsibility to protect the public while working with health care organizations; and (4) addressing concerns that CRP Certification not shield incompetent providers., Conclusions: The CRP Certification program is a promising example of collaboration among institutions, insurers, and regulators to promote patient-centered accountability and learning following adverse events., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Objective: The response to adverse events can lack patient-centeredness, perhaps because the involved institutions and other stakeholders misunderstand what patients and families go through after care breakdowns., Study Setting: Washington and Texas., Study Design: The HealthPact Patient and Family Advisory Council (PFAC) created and led a five-stage simulation exercise to help stakeholders understand what patients experience following an adverse event. The half-day exercise was presented twice., Data Collection and Analysis: Lessons learned related to the development and conduct of the exercise were synthesized from planning notes, attendee evaluations, and exercise discussion notes., Principal Findings: One hundred ninety-four individuals attended (86 Washington and 108 Texas). Take-homes from these exercises included the fact that the response to adverse events can be complex, siloed, and uncoordinated. Participating in this simulation exercise led stakeholders and patient advocates to express interest in continued collaboration., Conclusions: A PFAC-designed simulation can help stakeholders understand patient and family experiences following adverse events and potentially improve their response to these events., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Background: Many healthcare organizations have developed disclosure policies for large-scale adverse events, including the Veterans Health Administration (VA). This study evaluated VA's national large-scale disclosure policy and identifies gaps and successes in its implementation., Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with leaders, hospital employees, and patients at nine sites to elicit their perceptions of recent large-scale adverse events notifications and the national disclosure policy. Data were coded using the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)., Results: We conducted 97 interviews. Insights included how to handle the communication of large-scale disclosures through multiple levels of a large healthcare organization and manage ongoing communications about the event with employees. Of the 5 CFIR constructs and 26 sub-constructs assessed, seven were prominent in interviews. Leaders and employees specifically mentioned key problem areas involving 1) networks and communications during disclosure, 2) organizational culture, 3) engagement of external change agents during disclosure, and 4) a need for reflecting on and evaluating the policy implementation and disclosure itself. Patients shared 5) preferences for personal outreach by phone in place of the current use of certified letters. All interviewees discussed 6) issues with execution and 7) costs of the disclosure., Conclusions: CFIR analysis reveals key problem areas that need to be addresses during disclosure, including: timely communication patterns throughout the organization, establishing a supportive culture prior to implementation, using patient-approved, effective communications strategies during disclosures; providing follow-up support for employees and patients, and sharing lessons learned.

Background: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mandates disclosure of large-scale adverse events to patients, even if risk of harm is not clearly present. Concerns about past disclosures warranted further examination of the impact of this policy., Objective: Through a collaborative partnership between VA leaders, policymakers, researchers and stakeholders, the objective was to empirically identify critical aspects of disclosure processes as a first step towards improving future disclosures., Design: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants at nine VA facilities where recent disclosures took place., Participants: Ninety-seven stakeholders participated in the interviews: 38 employees, 28 leaders (from facilities, regions and national offices), 27 Veteran patients and family members, and four congressional staff members., Approach: Facility and regional leaders were interviewed by telephone, followed by a two-day site visit where employees, patients and family members were interviewed face-to-face. National leaders and congressional staff also completed telephone interviews. Interviews were analyzed using rapid qualitative assessment processes. Themes were mapped to the stages of the Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication model: pre-crisis, initial event, maintenance, resolution and evaluation., Key Results: Many areas for improvement during disclosure were identified, such as preparing facilities better (pre-crisis), creating rapid communications, modifying disclosure language, addressing perceptions of harm, reducing complexity, and seeking assistance from others (initial event), managing communication with other stakeholders (maintenance), minimizing effects on staff and improving trust (resolution), and addressing facilities' needs (evaluation)., Conclusions: Through the partnership, five recommendations to improve disclosures during each stage of communication have been widely disseminated throughout the VA using non-academic strategies. Some improvements have been made; other recommendations will be addressed through implementation of a large-scale adverse event disclosure toolkit. These toolkit strategies will enable leaders to provide timely and transparent information to patients and families, while reducing the burden on employees and the healthcare system during these events.

Background: Communication breakdowns in cancer care are common and represent a failure in patient-centered care. While multiple studies have elicited patients' perspectives on these breakdowns, little is known about cancer care providers' attitudes regarding the causes and potential solutions., Objective: To examine providers' (1) perceptions of the nature and causes of communication breakdowns with patients in cancer care and (2) suggestions for managing and preventing breakdowns., Design: Qualitative study of nine focus groups held at three sites (Massachusetts, Georgia and Washington)., Participants: Fifty-nine providers: 33% primary care physicians, 14% oncologists, 36% nurses, and 17% nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and others., Approach: Directed content analysis of focus group transcripts., Key Results: Providers' perceptions of the causes of communication breakdowns fell into three categories: causes related to patients, providers, or healthcare systems. Providers perceived that patients sometimes struggle to understand cancer and health-related information, have unrealistic expectations, experience emotional and psychological distress that interferes with information exchange; and may be reticent to share their confusion or concerns. Providers described their own and colleagues' contributions to these breakdowns as sharing inaccurate, conflicting, or uncoordinated information. Providers also described the difficulty in balancing hope with reality in discussions of prognosis. System issues named by providers included insufficient time with patients, payment systems, and changing protocols that inhibit communication and coordination of care. Potential solutions included greater patient engagement, team coordination, and systems that promote patient feedback., Conclusions: Providers described multiple causes for communication breakdowns at the patient, provider, and system level. Multi-level interventions that coordinate care and encourage feedback may help to address or prevent communication breakdowns.

Background: Important changes are occurring in how the medical profession approaches assessing and maintaining competence. Physician support for such changes will be essential for their success., Objective: To describe physician attitudes towards assessing and maintaining competence., Design: Cross-sectional internet survey., Participants: Random sample of 1,000 American College of Physicians members who were eligible to participate in the American Board of Internal Medicine Maintenance of Certification program., Main Measures: Questions assessed physicians' attitudes and experiences regarding: 1) self-regulation, 2) feedback on knowledge and clinical care, 3) demonstrating knowledge and clinical competence, 4) frequency of use and effectiveness of methods to assess or improve clinical care, and 5) transparency., Key Results: Surveys were completed by 446 of 943 eligible respondents (47%). Eighty percent reported it was important (somewhat/very) to receive feedback on their knowledge, and 94% considered it important (somewhat/very) to get feedback on their quality of care. However, only 24% reported that they receive useful feedback on their knowledge most/all of the time, and 27% reported receiving useful feedback on their clinical care most/all of the time. Seventy-five percent agreed that participating in programs to assess their knowledge is important to staying up-to-date, yet only 52% reported participating in such programs within the last 3 years. The majority (58%) believed physicians should be required to demonstrate their knowledge via a secure examination every 9-10 years. Support was low for Specialty Certification Boards making information about physician competence publically available, with respondents expressing concern about patients misinterpreting information about their Board Certification activities., Conclusions: A gap exists between physicians' interest in feedback on their competence and existing programs' ability to provide such feedback. Educating physicians about the importance of regularly assessing their knowledge and quality of care, coupled with enhanced systems to provide such feedback, is needed to close this gap.

The disclosure of unanticipated outcomes to patients, including medical errors, has received considerable attention of late. The discipline of anesthesiology is a leader in patient safety, and as the doctrine of full disclosure gains momentum, anesthesiologists must become acquainted with these philosophies and practices. Effective disclosure can improve doctor-patient relations, facilitate better understanding of systems, and potentially decrease medical malpractice costs. However, many physicians remain wary of discussing errors with patients due to concern about litigation, the communication challenges of disclosure, and loss of self-esteem. As a result, harmful errors are often not disclosed to patients. Disclosure poses special challenges for anesthesiologists. There is often very limited time before the anesthetic in which to build the patient-physician relationship, and anesthesiologists usually function within complex health care teams. Other team members such as the surgeon may have different perspectives on what the patient should be told about operating room errors. The anesthesiologist may still be physically caring for the patient while the surgeon has the initial discussion with the family about the event. As a result the anesthesiologist may be excluded from the planning or conduct of the important initial disclosure conversations. New disclosure strategies are needed to engage anesthesiologists as active participants in the disclosure of unanticipated outcomes. Anesthesiologists should be aware of the emerging best practices surrounding disclosure, as well as the training opportunities and disclosure support resources that are increasingly available. Innovative models should be developed that promote collaboration between all perioperative team members in the disclosure process. There are important opportunities for anesthesiologists to play a leading role in defining specialty-specific disclosure practices and to more effectively meet patients' needs for disclosure after unanticipated outcomes and medical errors.

Objectives: To investigate patients' and family members' perceptions and experiences of disclosure of healthcare incidents and to derive principles of effective disclosure., Design: Retrospective qualitative study based on 100 semi-structured, in depth interviews with patients and family members., Setting: Nationwide multisite survey across Australia., Participants: 39 patients and 80 family members who were involved in high severity healthcare incidents (leading to death, permanent disability, or long term harm) and incident disclosure. Recruitment was via national newspapers (43%), health services where the incidents occurred (28%), two internet marketing companies (27%), and consumer organisations (2%)., Main Outcome Measures: Participants' recurrent experiences and concerns expressed in interviews., Results: Most patients and family members felt that the health service incident disclosure rarely met their needs and expectations. They expected better preparation for incident disclosure, more shared dialogue about what went wrong, more follow-up support, input into when the time was ripe for closure, and more information about subsequent improvement in process. This analysis provided the basis for the formulation of a set of principles of effective incident disclosure., Conclusions: Despite growing prominence of open disclosure, discussion about healthcare incidents still falls short of patient and family member expectations. Healthcare organisations and providers should strengthen their efforts to meet patients' (and family members') needs and expectations.

Background: There is little to no information on whether race should be considered in the exam room by those who care for and treat patients. How primary care physicians understand the relationship between genes, race and drugs has the potential to influence both individual care and racial and ethnic health disparities., Objective: To describe physicians' use of race-based therapies, with specific attention to the case of BiDil (isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine), the first drug approved by the FDA for a race-specific indication, and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ace) inhibitors in their black and white patients., Design: Qualitative study involving 10 focus groups with 90 general internists., Participants: Black and white general internists recruited from community and academic internal medicine practices participated in the focus groups.Of the participants 64% were less than 45 years of age, and 73% were male., Approach: The focus groups were transcribed verbatim, and the data were analyzed using template analysis., Results: There was a range of opinions relating to the practice of race-based therapies. Physicians who were supportive of race-based therapies cited several potential benefits including motivating patients to comply with medical therapy and promoting changes in health behaviors by creating the perception that the medication and therapies were tailored specifically for them. Physicians acknowledged that in clinical practice some medications vary in their effectiveness across different racial groups, with some physicians citing the example of ace inhibitors. However, physicians voiced concern that black patients who could benefit from ace inhibitors may not be receiving them. They were also wary that the category of race reflected meaningful differences on a genetic level. In the case of BiDil, physicians were vocal in their concern that commercial interests were the primary impetus behind its creation., Conclusions: Primary care physicians' opinions regarding race-based therapy reveal a nuanced understanding of race-based therapies and a wariness of their use by physicians.

Rationale and Objectives: Research on communication between radiologists and women undergoing screening and diagnostic mammography is limited. We describe community radiologists' communication practices with patients regarding screening and diagnostic mammogram results and factors associated with frequency of communication., Materials and Methods: We received surveys from 257 radiologists (70% of those eligible) about the extent to which they talk to women as part of their health care visit for either screening or diagnostic mammograms, whether this occurs if the exam assessment is positive or negative, and how they use estimates of patient risk to convey information about an abnormal exam where the specific finding of cancer is not yet known. We also assessed characteristics of the radiologists to identify associations with more or less frequent communication at the time of the mammogram., Results: Two hundred and forty-three radiologists provided complete data (95%). Very few (<6%) reported routinely communicating with women when screening mammograms were either normal or abnormal. Fewer than half (47%) routinely communicated with women when their diagnostic mammograms were normal, whereas 77% often or always communicated with women when their diagnostic exams were abnormal. For positive diagnostic exams, female radiologists were more likely to be frequent communicators compared to males (87.1%-72.8%; P=.02) and those who spend 40%-79% of their time in breast imaging (94.6%) were more likely to be frequent communicators compared to those who spend less time (67.2%-78.9%; P=.02). Most radiologists convey risk information using general rather than numeric statements (57.7% vs. 28.5%)., Conclusions: Radiologists are most likely to convey information about diagnostic mammographic findings when results are abnormal. Most radiologists convey risk information using general rather than numeric statements.

Pharmacists must collaborate with other health professionals to promote the optimal use of medications, relying on coordinated, interprofessional communication and care to do so. In 2003, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended "all health professionals should be educated to deliver patient-centered care as members of an interdisciplinary team, emphasizing evidence-based practice, quality improvement approaches, and informatics." At the University of Washington, the Center for Health Sciences Interprofessional Education (CHSIE) was established in 1997 to promote interprofessional curricular and clinical innovation in education, faculty development, and student activities, and to conduct evaluative research regarding the impact of interprofessional innovations. In this manuscript, we will describe the Center for Health Sciences Interprofessional Education, and highlight key projects that serve as examples of pharmacy involvement in interprofessional education, research, and service.

Purpose: This qualitative study explored black and white general internists' attitudes about the relevance of race in clinical care; views of the relationships among race, genetics, and disease; and expectations about the future of genetics and health., Methods: We conducted 10 racially concordant focus groups of primary care physicians in five metropolitan areas in the United States. Ninety board certified or eligible general internists (50 self-identified whites and 40 self-identified blacks) participated in the study. Analysis included a two-stage independent review and adjudication process., Results: Both black and white physicians concluded that the race of the patient is medically relevant but did not agree upon why race is important in clinical decisions. They were reticent to make connections among race, genetics, and disease and asserted that genetics has a limited role in explaining racial differences in health. However, they were enthusiastic about the future of genomic medicine, believing that the main benefit will be the potential to improve the efficacy of commonly used drugs., Conclusions: Understanding the similarities and differences between black and white physicians' attitudes and beliefs about race, health and genetics is important for the translation of genomics to clinical care.

Background: As more physicians work part-time (PT), the faculty, institutions, and organizations that represent them should understand the factors that motivate and satisfy these physicians., Objective: Compare factors associated with job satisfaction among PT and full-time (FT) academic physicians., Design: Cross-sectional survey., Participants: Members of the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM), a national, academic Internal Medicine organization., Results: Fifty percent (1,396 of 2,772) of SGIM members responded, 11% work PT. Compared to FT, PT physicians were more often female (85% vs 38%, p < .001), clinicians (Cs) or clinician-educators (CEs) (84% vs 56%, p < .001), and of a lower rank (77% vs 61%, p = .001). Job satisfaction was similar between PT and FT Cs and CEs. For PT Cs and CEs, record of publication (11% vs 21%, p = .04) and local and national recognition (24% vs 36%, p = .03) were less important to overall job satisfaction compared to FT Cs and CEs. In multivariate analysis, academic rank (odds ratio [OR] = 7.18, 95%CI = 1.40-36.50) was associated with higher satisfaction among PT Cs and CEs., Conclusions: PT and FT C and CE SGIM members report similar satisfaction, but different factors contribute to satisfaction. Knowing what motivates and satisfies PT physicians may allow medical centers to retain faculty and create positions to help them to fulfill their potential.

Background and Objective: Although many patient safety organizations and hospital leaders wish to involve patients in error prevention, it is unknown whether patients will take the recommended actions or whether error prevention involvement affects hospitalization satisfaction., Design and Participants: Telephone interviews with 2,078 patients discharged from 11 Midwest hospitals., Results: Ninety-one percent agreed that patients could help prevent errors. Patients were very comfortable asking a medication's purpose (91%), general medical questions (89%), and confirming their identity (84%), but were uncomfortable asking medical providers whether they had washed their hands (46% very comfortable). While hospitalized, many asked questions about their care (85%) and a medication's purpose (75%), but fewer confirmed they were the correct patient (38%), helped mark their incision site (17%), or asked about handwashing (5%). Multivariate logistic regression revealed that patients who felt very comfortable with error prevention were significantly more likely to take 6 of the 7 error-prevention actions compared with uncomfortable patients., Conclusions: While patients were generally comfortable with error prevention, their participation varied by specific action. Since patients who were very comfortable were most likely to take action, educational interventions to increase comfort with error prevention may be necessary to help patients become more engaged.

The relationship between patients and their physicians is fundamental to high-quality care, yet this relationship is under stress in the current healthcare environment. Health plans have instituted a variety of policies to contain costs, not fully appreciating the adverse effect these decisions have on the doctor-patient interaction. Legislators have responded to the public's concern about managed care with "patient protection" bills that fail to address the fundamental causes of tension between doctors and patients. This paper presents a model describing how the need to contain costs affects the doctor-patient interaction and proposes a prescription for protecting the relationship. The model highlights how the healthcare environment affects patients' and physicians' expectations before a medical visit, the nature of their interaction during a visit, and patients' health outcomes. This prescription for protecting the doctor-patient relationship contains 4 key ingredients: (1) definition and promulgation of evidence-based standards for the doctor-patient relationship; (2) joint doctor-patient advocacy on behalf of the relationship; (3) positive incentives for exemplary doctor-patient relationships; and (4) expanded training and assessment of physicians' communication skills, both in general and related to discussing cost containment with patients. These measures will help restore the essential element of superb healthcare: a strong doctor-patient relationship.

Background: Patients worry about financial conflicts of interest related to cost containment but may hesitate to share this concern with their physician. Little is known about how this issue affects encounters between doctors and patients, or about the communication strategies physicians endorse for responding to such concerns., Objective: To understand physicians' perspectives on how managed care patients' concerns about conflicts of interest are impacting the physician-patient relationship in routine visits., Study Design: Qualitative analysis of physician focus groups. Physicians also rated audiotaped dialogues of different communication strategies for discussing conflicts of interest with patients., Participants: Thirty-nine community physicians (25 general internists and 14 family practice physicians) in Portland, Oregon--a highly penetrated managed care market. Physicians' average age was 44 years; 36% were women., Results: These physicians report that patient concern about financial conflicts of interest is implicit in many patient encounters. However, patients rarely ask directly about conflicts of interest. Physicians believe that patients' concerns about conflicts of interest are impairing doctor-patient relationships and damaging physicians' sense of professional worth. Physicians prefer communication strategies for discussing conflicts of interest that address patients' emotions or identify a common goal through negotiation. These physicians seldom initiate discussions with patients about conflicts of interest., Conclusions: Patient concern about conflicts of interest is adversely impacting the physician-patient interaction. Physicians should be alert to patients' implicit expressions of concern about conflicts of interest, and practice communication techniques for responding to these concerns effectively.

Objective: To determine how physicians respond to a request for an expensive, unindicated test., Design: Cross-sectional observational study., Setting: Four sites of a group-model HMO., Participants: Thirty-nine internist volunteers., Intervention: A standardized patient requesting magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the head to rule out multiple sclerosis (MS) was inserted unannounced into physicians' regular schedules. The patient's only complaint was fatigue with no neurologic symptoms., Measurements and Main Results: Physicians and standardized patients completed assessments after each visit. Thirty-five (90%) of 39 physicians "had no idea" that the patient they saw was the standardized patient, and the remaining four participants (10%) were only "somewhat suspicious." Three (8%) of the physicians agreed to the MRI at the initial visit, and eight (22%) said they might order an MRI in the future. All doctors who refused the MRI told the patient this was based on lack of a medical indication for the test; seven (19%) also cited the test's expense. Twenty physicians (53%) of 38 agreed to a neurology referral. In response to the standardized patient's concerns, nine physicians (23%) verbalized that MS is scary, and four (10%) asked the patient about their friend's experience with MS. A few physicians appeared to dismiss the patient's concerns, such as by telling the patient they were being "paranoid.", Conclusions: Few physicians agreed to a standardized patient's request for a medically unindicated MRI, but more than half agreed to refer this patient to a specialist. As physicians practice cost-conscious medicine, they may need to focus on good communication to maintain patient satisfaction.