Assessing patient experience of the tenets of osteopathic medicine.

CONTEXT: Previous studies document that both osteopathic physicians and third-party observers identify an approach to the patient that is consistent with the philosophy and tenets of osteopathic medicine, often without investigating whether patients identify or are satisfied with it. Osteopathic physicians and the medical education community understand the distinctiveness of an osteopathic approach to the patient. Understanding the outcomes of an osteopathic approach to patient care includes confirming whether patients experience the tenets of osteopathic medicine in physician visits and, if so, how it relates to their experience of physician empathy and satisfaction with the visit. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to assess patient experience of the tenets of osteopathic medicine, physician empathy, and satisfaction with the visit and to compare the results for patients who saw DOs with those who saw MD physicians. METHODS: More than 2000 patients at four outpatient clinic facilities were surveyed after a clinical visit on 22 prompts regarding their experiences of physician behaviors, physician empathy, and their own satisfaction with the encounter. Adult patients who were treated by an osteopathic or allopathic physician for a nonemergency encounter and who were not pregnant were included in the analysis. Survey results for 1,330 patient-physician encounters were analyzed utilizing linear regression models comparing constructs representing patient experiences of the tenets of osteopathic medicine (Tenets), physician empathy (Physician Empathy), satisfaction (Satisfaction) with the encounter, as well as additional demographic and encounter variables. RESULTS: Approximately 23.8 % of patients approached during the study period completed a survey (n=2,793), and among those, 54.7 % of patients who consented to the study and who saw a physician provider (n=1,330/2,431) were included. Significant (p≤0.01), positive associations among patient experiences of Satisfaction with the visit and Physician Empathy were observed among those who saw both DO and MD physicians. Patients experienced the Tenets during encounters with both DO and MD physicians, but linear regression showed that their experience of the Tenets was significantly (p≤0.01) and positively explained by their experience of Physician Empathy (ß=0.332, p=0.00, se=0.052) and Satisfaction with the visit (ß=0.209, p=0.01, se=0.081) only when the physician was a DO. CONCLUSIONS: Patients identified physician behaviors consistent with the Tenets and positively associated their experiences of Physician Empathy and Satisfaction with the visit regardless of physician training background. Patient experience of the Tenets significantly explained their experiences of Physician Empathy and Satisfaction after visits with a DO but not after visits with an MD.

Comparison of Basic Science Knowledge Between DO and MD Students.

CONTEXT: With the coming single accreditation system for graduate medical education, medical educators may wonder whether knowledge in basic sciences is equivalent for osteopathic and allopathic medical students. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether medical students' basic science knowledge is the same among osteopathic and allopathic medical students. METHODS: A dataset of the Touro University College of Osteopathic Medicine-CA student records from the classes of 2013, 2014, and 2015 and the national cohort of National Board of Medical Examiners Comprehensive Basic Science Examination (NBME-CBSE) parameters for MD students were used. Models of the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination-USA (COMLEX-USA) Level 1 scores were fit using linear and logistic regression. The models included variables used in both osteopathic and allopathic medical professions to predict COMLEX-USA outcomes, such as Medical College Admission Test biology scores, preclinical grade point average, number of undergraduate science units, and scores on the NBME-CBSE. Regression statistics were studied to compare the effectiveness of models that included or excluded NBME-CBSE scores at predicting COMLEX-USA Level 1 scores. Variance inflation factor was used to investigate multicollinearity. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to show the effectiveness of NBME-CBSE scores at predicting COMLEX-USA Level 1 pass/fail outcomes. A t test at 99% level was used to compare mean NBME-CBSE scores with the national cohort. RESULTS: A total of 390 student records were analyzed. Scores on the NBME-CBSE were found to be an effective predictor of COMLEX-USA Level 1 scores (P<.001). The pass/fail outcome on COMLEX-USA Level 1 was also well predicted by NBME-CBSE scores (P<.001). No significant difference was found in performance on the NBME-CBSE between osteopathic and allopathic medical students (P=.322). CONCLUSION: As an examination constructed to assess the basic science knowledge of allopathic medical students, the NBME-CBSE is effective at predicting performance on COMLEX-USA Level 1. In addition, osteopathic medical students performed the same as allopathic medical students on the NBME-CBSE. The results imply that the same basic science knowledge is expected for DO and MD students.