Search

This article describes the need for health professions educators to consider their and others' epistemologies in their work. It introduces four categories of epistemic beliefs and discusses common topics and their relationships to epistemological traditions, including how they can conflict with one another. It also suggests a mechanism for surfacing and managing epistemological tensions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Virtual care (VC) is an accepted modality of care delivery, and shared decision‐making (SDM) benefits patients with rheumatologic and chronic conditions (RCCs). Unfortunately, research suggests reduced quality of SDM during VC. This study explores the benefits and shortcomings of SDM regarding RCCs during VC with suggestions for optimally using VC during SDM. Methods: Following Stiggelbout's framework for SDM, we conducted focus groups of patients with RCCs and providers to understand their experiences with SDM during VC, probing for facilitating and challenging factors. We conducted content analysis of the transcripts, defining themes, and inductively reasoned to identify relationships among themes. We summarized the facilitators, barriers, and opportunities for improving SDM during VC that participants proposed. Results: Virtual SDM shares several similarities with in‐person practice, as both draw upon trusting patient‐provider relationships, following the same general steps, and relying on effective communication. VC presents solutions for known barriers to in‐person SDM, expanding time for making decisions and access to care. Technology and virtual health systems introduce new barriers to SDM, and participants list opportunities for overcoming these concerns. Conclusion: VC is a tool that can enhance and even support superior SDM compared with in‐person visits when implemented successfully, a condition requiring the development of nuanced skills to correctly identify when and how to best use VC for SDM as well as technology and health care structures that integrate SDM into VC. Therefore, patients, providers, insurance carriers, and policy makers all contribute to the success of SDM among RCCs during VC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PhenomenonMoral distress, which occurs when someone's moral integrity is seriously compromised because they feel unable to act in accordance with their core values and obligations, is an increasingly important concern for physicians. Due in part to limited understanding of the root causes of moral distress, little is known about which approaches are most beneficial for mitigating physicians' distress. Our objective was to describe system-level factors in United States (U.S.) healthcare that contribute to moral distress among pediatric hospitalist attendings and pediatric residents. ApproachIn this qualitative study, we conducted one-on-one semi-structured interviews with pediatric hospitalist attendings and pediatric residents from 4 university-affiliated, freestanding children's hospitals in the U.S. between August 2019 and February 2020. Data were coded with an iteratively developed codebook, categorized into themes, and then synthesized. FindingsWe interviewed 22 hospitalists and 18 residents. Participants described in detail how the culture of medicine created a context that cultivated moral distress. Norms of medical education and the practice of medicine created conflicts between residents' strong sense of professional responsibility to serve the best interests of their patients and the expectations of a hierarchical system of decision-making. The corporatization of the U.S. healthcare system created administrative and financial pressures that conflicted with the moral responsibility felt by both residents and hospitalists to provide the care that their patients and families needed. InsightsThese findings highlight the critical role of systemic sources of moral distress. These findings suggest that system-level interventions must supplement existing interventions that target individual health care providers. Preventing and managing moral distress will require a broad approach that addresses systemic drivers, such as the corporatization of medicine, which are entrenched in the culture of medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses how a parent advisory process was used to write professional-education competencies and develop teaching strategies for a military medical school. Includes recommendations for involving parents of young children with special needs in successful advisory activities. (Author/CR)

Abstract Background There are no empirically-grounded criteria or tools to define or benchmark the quality of outpatient clinical documentation. Outpatient clinical notes document care, communicate treatment plans and support patient safety, medical education, medico-legal investigations and reimbursement. Accurately describing and assessing quality of clinical documentation is a necessary improvement in an increasingly team-based healthcare delivery system. In this paper we describe the quality of outpatient clinical notes from the perspective of multiple stakeholders. Methods Using purposeful sampling for maximum diversity, we conducted focus groups and individual interviews with clinicians, nursing and ancillary staff, patients, and healthcare administrators at six federal health care facilities between 2009 and 2011. All sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using open, axial and selective coding. Results The 163 participants included 61 clinicians, 52 nurse/ancillary staff, 31 patients and 19 administrative staff. Three organizing themes emerged: 1) characteristics of quality in clinical notes, 2) desired elements within the clinical notes and 3) system supports to improve the quality of clinical notes. We identified 11 codes to describe characteristics of clinical notes, 20 codes to describe desired elements in quality clinical notes and 11 codes to describe clinical system elements that support quality when writing clinical notes. While there was substantial overlap between the aspects of quality described by the four stakeholder groups, only clinicians and administrators identified ease of translation into billing codes as an important characteristic of a quality note. Only patients rated prioritization of their medical problems as an aspect of quality. Nurses included care and education delivered to the patient, information added by the patient, interdisciplinary information, and infection alerts as important content. Conclusions Perspectives of these four stakeholder groups provide a comprehensive description of quality in outpatient clinical documentation. The resulting description of characteristics and content necessary for quality notes provides a research-based foundation for assessing the quality of clinical documentation in outpatient health care settings.