Search

Background: The essence of humanism in medicine and health care is relationships-caring relationships between clinicians and patients. While raising concerns regarding professional-patient boundaries has positively contributed to our understanding and prevention of potentially harmful boundary violations, there is controversy about which types of relationships, caring acts, and practices are acceptable versus cross boundary lines.Objective: To examine primary care physicians' practices and attitudes regarding acts that have been questioned as potentially "inappropriate" or "unethical" crossing of professional-patient boundaries.Design: Surveys conducted via in-person polling or electronic and mailed paper submissions from April 2016 to July 2017. We calculated descriptive statistics and examined associations with practices and attitudes using logistic regression.Participants: Random sample of all US primary care physicians who treat adult patients; convenience sample of attendees at medicine grand rounds presentations.Main Measures: Outcomes were self-reported practices and attitudes related to giving patients rides home, paying for patients' medication, helping patients find jobs, employing patients, going to dinner with patients, and providing care to personal friends.Key Results: Among 1563 total respondents, 34% had given a ride home, 34% had paid for medications, 15% helped patients find a job, 7% had employed a patient, 10% had dinner with patients, and 59% provided care to personal friends. A majority disapproved of dinner with a patient (75%) but approved of or were neutral on all other scenarios (61-90%).Conclusions: The medical profession is quite divided on questions related to drawing lines about appropriate boundaries. Contrary to official and widespread proscriptions against such practices (with exception of dinner dates), many have actually engaged in such practices and the majority found them acceptable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Improving care coordination is a key priority for many healthcare systems. However, initiatives to improve care coordination are complex to implement and have produced mixed results. A better understanding of how to craft and support implementation of effective care coordination strategies is needed.Objective: To identify and understand the challenges and factors encountered by Patient-Aligned Care Team (PACT) staff in performing care coordination tasks in outpatient clinics in the Veterans Health Administration (VA).Design: Qualitative study using semi-structured formative evaluation interviews.Participants: Fourteen interviews with 18 clinical frontline managers and staff from 12 clinic sites across five VA health systems.Interventions: This paper reports on baseline data collected for the Coordination Toolkit and Coaching (CTAC) project. CTAC aims to improve patients' experience of care coordination within VA primary care and between PACT and other outpatient and community settings.Approach: We conducted pre-implementation telephone interviews with frontline managers and staff, primarily nurse managers.Key Results: PACT staff described challenges in aligning care coordination priorities across different levels of the VA system, including staff, patients, and leadership. Additionally, PACT staff noted challenges coordinating care both within and outside the VA, and identified resource barriers impeding their care coordination efforts. To address these challenges, staff made several recommendations for improvement, including (1) contingency staffing to address staff burnout; (2) additional PACT training for new staff; (3) clarification of care coordination roles and responsibilities; and (4) and care coordination initiatives that align both with centrally initiated care coordination programs and frontline needs.Conclusion: In the VA and similarly complex healthcare systems, our findings suggest the need for care coordination strategies that are buttressed by a system-level vision for care coordination, backed up by clear roles and responsibilities for information exchange between primary care staff and other settings, and multidimensional accountability metrics that encompass patient-, staff-, and system-level goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Racial-ethnic minorities receive lower quality and intensity of health care compared with whites across a wide range of preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic services and disease entities. These disparities in health care contribute to continuing racial-ethnic disparities in the burden of illness and death. Several national medical organizations and the Institute of Medicine have issued position papers and recommendations for the elimination of health care disparities. However, physicians in practice are often at a loss for how to translate these principles and recommendations into specific interventions in their own clinical practices. This paper serves as a blueprint for translating principles for the elimination of racial-ethnic disparities in health care into specific actions that are relevant for individual clinical practices. We describe what is known about reducing racial-ethnic disparities in clinical practice and make recommendations for how clinician leaders can apply this evidence to transform their own practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The objective of this paper was to describe primary care prescribers' perspectives on electronic prescribing drug alerts at the point of prescribing.Design: We used a mixed-method study which included clinician surveys (web-based and paper) and focus groups with prescribers and staff.Participants: Prescribers (n = 157) working in one of 64 practices using 1 of 6 e-prescribing technologies in 6 US states completed the quantitative survey and 276 prescribers and staff participated in focus groups.Measurements: The study measures self-reported frequency of overriding of drug alerts; open-ended responses to: "What do you think of the drug alerts your software generates for you?"Results: More than 40% of prescribers indicated they override drug-drug interactions most of the time or always (range by e-prescribing system, 25% to 50%). Participants indicated that the software and the interaction alerts were beneficial to patient safety and valued seeing drug-drug interactions for medications prescribed by others. However, they noted that alerts are too sensitive and often unnecessary. Participant suggestions included: (1) run drug alerts on an active medication list and (2) allow prescribers to set the threshold for severity of alerts.Conclusions: Primary care prescribers recognize the patient safety value of drug prescribing alerts embedded within electronic prescribing software. Improvements to increase specificity and reduce alert overload are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine if a clinically structured, paper-based prescription form can modify pharmaceutical prescribing behavior without restricting physician freedom to select the most appropriate medication for an individual patient.Design: Uncontrolled, nonrandomized, time series design.Setting: The urgent care clinic of a university-affiliated, county-supported hospital that provides care for underserved, vulnerable populations.Patients: Patients (N = 2189) who had a prescription written at the intervention site during the study.Intervention: Four-phase interventions lasting 2 weeks each, with a washout period between each phase, consisting of: (1). collection of baseline data utilizing the traditional prescription blank, (2). introduction of the pre-formatted prescription form, (3). use of the pre-formatted prescription form with medication cost added, and (4). pre-formatted prescription form with target drug (ranitidine) removed.Measurements and Main Results: Physicians were less likely to prescribe ranitidine compared to cimetidine after the introduction of the cost information (P <.01) and again after the removal of ranitidine from the pre-formatted prescription form (P <.001).Conclusions: A structured, paper-based prescription order form can shift prescribing practices without inhibiting physicians' ordering freedom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients' experience of stereotype threat in clinical settings and encounters may be one contributor to health care disparities. Stereotype threat occurs when cues in the environment make negative stereotypes associated with an individual's group status salient, triggering physiological and psychological processes that have detrimental consequences for behavior. By recognizing and understanding the factors that can trigger stereotype threat and understanding its consequences in medical settings, providers can prevent it from occurring or ameliorate its consequences for patient behavior and outcomes. In this paper, we discuss the implications of stereotype threat for medical education and trainee performance and offer practical suggestions for how future providers might reduce stereotype threat in their exam rooms and clinics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article comments on a paper by John Song and colleagues about homeless persons' attitude toward death and dying. The authors note that the wishes of the homeless include a desire for death with dignity and freedom from pain. They mention the unique perspectives of the homeless including a high rate of exposure to loss, both early in life and while living on the streets. They stress that acknowledging the homeless patients' situation could help reduce their distrust of the health care system.

The paper by Clever et al. published in this issue of the Journal characterizes students at the beginning of their rite of passage. The authors readminister a questionnaire developed by Feudtner and Christakis and seven years after their original publication, demonstrate that the majority of medical students continue to hear derogatory comments directed toward patients and to witness or do actions felt to be unethical. The authors determine that the most important reasons students fail to challenge these "unethical" events are "difficult personalities on the team," and "being too low in the hierarchy," reasons reflecting their rocky period of socialization into the current clinical climate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]