Search

Context: Research suggests that pharmaceutical marketing influences prescribing and may cause cognitive dissonance for prescribers. This work has primarily been with physicians and physician-trainees. Questions remain regarding why prescribers continue to meet with pharmaceutical representatives (PRs).Objective: To describe the reasons that prescribers from various health professions continue to interact with PRs despite growing evidence of the influence of these interactions.Design, Setting, and Participants: Multi-disciplinary focus groups with 61 participants held in practice settings and at society meetings.Results: Most prescribers participating in our focus groups believe that overall PR interactions are beneficial to patient care and practice health. They either trust the information from PRs or feel that they are equipped to evaluate it independently. Despite acknowledgement of study findings to the contrary, prescribers state that they are able to effectively manage PR interactions such that their own prescribing is not adversely impacted. Prescribers describe few specific strategies or policies for these interactions, and report that policies are not consistently implemented with all members of a clinic or institution. Some prescribers perceive an inherent contradiction between academic centers and national societies receiving money from pharmaceutical companies, and then recommending restriction at the level of the individual prescriber. Prescribers with different training backgrounds present a few novel reasons for these meetings.Conclusions: Despite evidence that PR detailing influences prescribing, providers from several health professions continue to believe that PR interactions improve patient care, and that they can adequately evaluate and filter information presented to them by PRs. Focus group comments suggest that cultural change is necessary to break the norms that exist in many settings. Applying policies consistently, considering non-physician members of the healthcare team, working with trainees, restructuring the current primary care model and offering convenient, individualized, non-biased educational options may aid success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent changes in healthcare system and training mandates have altered the clinical learning environment. We incorporated reflective writing into Internal Medicine clerkships (IMcs) in multiple institutions so students could consider the impact of clerkship experiences on their personal and professional development. We analyzed student reflections to inform curricula and support learning.Methods: We qualitatively analyzed the reflections of students at 3 US medical schools during IMcs (N = 292) to identify themes, tone, and reflective quality using an iterative approach. Chi-square tests assessed differences between these factors and across institutions.Findings: Students openly described powerful experiences. Major themes focused on 4 categories: personal issues (PI), professional development (PD), relational issues (RI), and medical care (MC). Each major theme was represented at each institution, although with significant variability between institutions in many of the subcategories including student role (PI), development-as-a-physician (PD), professionalism (PD) (p < 0.001). Students used positive tones to describe student role, development-as-a-physician and physician-patient relationship (PD) (p < 0.01-0.001), and negative tones for quality and safety (MC) (p < 0.05). Only 4% of writings coded as professionalism had a positive tone. Students employed a "reporting" voice in writing about clinical problem-solving, healthcare systems, and quality/safety (MC).Discussion: Reflection is considered important to professional development. Our analysis suggests that students at 3 institutions reflect on similar experiences. Theme variability across institutions implies curricula should be tailored to local culture. Reflective quality analysis suggests students are better equipped to reflect on certain experiences over others, which may impact learning. Student reflections can function as a mirror for our organizations, offer institutional feedback for support and improvement, and inform curricula for learners and faculty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Disclosure of medical errors is encouraged, but research on how patients respond to specific practices is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to determine whether full disclosure, an existing positive physician-patient relationship, an offer to waive associated costs, and the severity of the clinical outcome influenced patients' responses to medical errors. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred and seven health plan members participated in a randomized experiment in which they viewed video depictions of medical error and disclosure. DESIGN: Subjects were randomly assigned to experimental condition. Conditions varied in type of medication error, level of disclosure, reference to a prior positive physician-patient relationship, an offer to waive costs, and clinical outcome. MEASURES: Self-reported likelihood of changing physicians and of seeking legal advice: satisfaction, trust, and emotional response. RESULTS: Nondisclosure increased the likelihood of changing physicians, and reduced satisfaction and trust in both error conditions. Nondisclosure increased the likelihood of seeking legal advice and was associated with a more negative emotional response In the missed allergy error condition, but did not have a statistically significant impact on seeking legal advice or emotional response in the monitoring error condition. Neither the existence of a positive relationship nor an offer to waive costs had a statistically significant impact. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that full disclosure is likely to have a positive effect or no effect on how patients respond to medical errors. The clinical outcome also influences patients' responses. The impact of an existing positive physician-patient relationship, or of waiving costs associated with the error remains uncertain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

CONTEXT: Trainees are exposed to medical errors throughout medical school and residency. Little is known about what facilitates and limits learning from these experiences. OBJ'ECT/VE: To identify major factors and areas of tension in trainees' learning from medical errors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Structured telephone interviews with 59 trainees (medical students and residents) from 1 academic medical center. Five authors reviewed transcripts of audiotaped interviews using content analysis. RESULTS: Trainees were aware that medical errors occur from early in medical school. Many had an intense emotional response to the idea of committing errors in patient care. Students and residents noted variation and conflict in institutional recommendations and individual actions. Many expressed role confusion regarding whether and how to initiate discussion after errors occurred. Some noted the conflict between reporting errors to seniors who were responsible for their evaluation. Learners requested more open discussion of actual errors and faculty disclosure. No students or residents felt that they learned better from near misses than from actual errors, and many believed that they learned the most when harm was caused. CONCLUSIONS: Trainees are aware of medical errors, but remaining tensions may limit learning, institutions can immediately address variability in faculty response and local culture by disseminating clear, accessible algorithms to guide behavior when errors occur. Educators should develop longitudinal curricula that integrate actual cases and faculty disclosure. Future multi-institutional work should focus on identified themes such as teaching and learning in emotionally charged situations, learning from errors and near misses and balance between individual and systems responsibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]