Broadening Medical Students' Exposure to the Range of Illness Experiences: A Pilot Curriculum Focused on Depression Education.

PROBLEM: Exposing medical students to a broad range of illness experiences is crucial for teaching them to practice patient-centered care, but students often have limited interaction with patients with diverse illness presentations. APPROACH: The authors developed, implemented, and evaluated a self-directed online curriculum followed by a small-group discussion focused on depression education. The curriculum was based on a module created using the Database of Individual Patients' Experiences methodology. Findings from 40 interviews with young adults across the United States about their diverse experiences with depression were summarized online, and the summaries were illustrated by video, audio, and text clips. From August 2016 to April 2017, third-year students completed either this online curriculum and the usual clerkship curriculum or just the usual clerkship curriculum. These intervention and control groups completed pre- and postsurveys. OUTCOMES: Students in the intervention group reported that the online curriculum influenced their thinking about depression (51/56) nearly as often as they reported that seeing patients in clinic did (53/56). They also reported greater decreases in personal stigmatizing attitudes toward depression than did students in the control group as measured by the Depression Stigma Scale (5.75-4.02, intervention; 6.50-5.65, control; P = .004). In open-ended responses, students in the intervention group were 13 times more likely to describe key lessons from the curriculum that reflected patient heterogeneity. NEXT STEPS: Future collaborations include implementing and evaluating this curriculum at other medical schools and developing additional versions based on other illness experiences.

Vital Directions for Health and Health Care: Priorities From a National Academy of Medicine Initiative.

Importance: Recent discussion has focused on questions related to the repeal and replacement of portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, issues central to the future of health and health care in the United States transcend the ACA provisions receiving the greatest attention. Initiatives directed to certain strategic and infrastructure priorities are vital to achieve better health at lower cost. Objectives: To review the most salient health challenges and opportunities facing the United States, to identify practical and achievable priorities essential to health progress, and to present policy initiatives critical to the nation's health and fiscal integrity. Evidence Review: Qualitative synthesis of 19 National Academy of Medicine-commissioned white papers, with supplemental review and analysis of publicly available data and published research findings. Findings: The US health system faces major challenges. Health care costs remain high at $3.2 trillion spent annually, of which an estimated 30% is related to waste, inefficiencies, and excessive prices; health disparities are persistent and worsening; and the health and financial burdens of chronic illness and disability are straining families and communities. Concurrently, promising opportunities and knowledge to achieve change exist. Across the 19 discussion papers examined, 8 crosscutting policy directions were identified as vital to the nation's health and fiscal future, including 4 action priorities and 4 essential infrastructure needs. The action priorities-pay for value, empower people, activate communities, and connect care-recurred across the articles as direct and strategic opportunities to advance a more efficient, equitable, and patient- and community-focused health system. The essential infrastructure needs-measure what matters most, modernize skills, accelerate real-world evidence, and advance science-were the most commonly cited foundational elements to ensure progress. Conclusions and Relevance: The action priorities and essential infrastructure needs represent major opportunities to improve health outcomes and increase efficiency and value in the health system. As the new US administration and Congress chart the future of health and health care for the United States, and as health leaders across the country contemplate future directions for their programs and initiatives, their leadership and strategic investment in these priorities will be essential for achieving significant progress.

The Charter on Professionalism for Health Care Organizations.

In 2002, the Physician Charter on Medical Professionalism was published to provide physicians with guidance for decision making in a rapidly changing environment. Feedback from physicians indicated that they were unable to fully live up to the principles in the 2002 charter partly because of their employing or affiliated health care organizations. A multistakeholder group has developed a Charter on Professionalism for Health Care Organizations, which may provide more guidance than charters for individual disciplines, given the current structure of health care delivery systems.This article contains the Charter on Professionalism for Health Care Organizations, as well as the process and rationale for its development. For hospitals and hospital systems to effectively care for patients, maintain a healthy workforce, and improve the health of populations, they must attend to the four domains addressed by the Charter: patient partnerships, organizational culture, community partnerships, and operations and business practices. Impacting the social determinants of health will require collaboration among health care organizations, government, and communities.Transitioning to the model hospital described by the Charter will challenge historical roles and assumptions of both its leadership and staff. While the Charter is aspirational, it also outlines specific institutional behaviors that will benefit both patients and workers. Lastly, this article considers obstacles to implementing the Charter and explores avenues to facilitate its dissemination.

Breast Cancer Survivor Advocacy at a University Hospital: Development of a Peer Support Program with Evaluation by Patients, Advocates, and Clinicians.

Peer-to-peer support programs provide unique psychosocial and educational support for breast cancer patients. A Patient Survivor Advocacy (PSA) program was developed by the University of Wisconsin Breast Center (UWBC) to provide support for newly diagnosed patients from peers who had completed primary treatment. In this study, we evaluated patient, advocate, and clinician experience with the PSA program. A program matching volunteer peer advocates at least 1 year removed from primary treatment with newly diagnosed patients was developed. Peer advocates were recruited from the practices of UWBC clinicians and received in-person training on six dimensions of peer advocacy. Trained advocates were then paired based on demographic and medical history with new patients referred to the program. Survey assessment tools were distributed to assess peer advocate and patient satisfaction, as well as clinician experience. Forty patients have been matched with seven advocates, with contact largely by email (53 %) or phone (36 %). Patients and peer advocates reported satisfaction with the program. The majority of patients (92.9 %) reported that the program was "helpful" and that they would recommend the PSA program to another woman with breast cancer. All peer advocates (100 %) responded with a sense of achievement in their advocate roles. Clinicians noted challenges in referral to the program. Peer advocates can provide key emotional and psychosocial support to newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. The peer advocate, patient, and clinician feedback collected in this study will inform the future development of this program at our and peer institutions.

Integrating Compassionate, Collaborative Care (the "Triple C") Into Health Professional Education to Advance the Triple Aim of Health Care.

Empathy and compassion provide an important foundation for effective collaboration in health care. Compassion (the recognition of and response to the distress and suffering of others) should be consistently offered by health care professionals to patients, families, staff, and one another. However, compassion without collaboration may result in uncoordinated care, while collaboration without compassion may result in technically correct but depersonalized care that fails to meet the unique emotional and psychosocial needs of all involved. Providing compassionate, collaborative care (CCC) is critical to achieving the "triple aim" of improving patients' health and experiences of care while reducing costs. Yet, values and skills related to CCC (or the "Triple C") are not routinely taught, modeled, and assessed across the continuum of learning and practice. To change this paradigm, an interprofessional group of experts recently recommended approaches and a framework for integrating CCC into health professional education and postgraduate training as well as clinical care. In this Perspective, the authors describe how the Triple C framework can be integrated and enhance existing competency standards to advance CCC across the learning and practice continuum. They also discuss strategies for partnering with patients and families to improve health professional education and health care design and delivery through quality improvement projects. They emphasize that compassion and collaboration are important sources of professional, patient, and family satisfaction as well as critical aspects of professionalism and person-centered, relationship-based high-quality care.

Constructing High-stakes Surgical Decisions: It's Better to Die Trying.

OBJECTIVE: To explore high-stakes surgical decision making from the perspective of seniors and surgeons. BACKGROUND: A majority of older chronically ill patients would decline a low-risk procedure if the outcome was severe functional impairment. However, 25% of Medicare beneficiaries have surgery in their last 3 months of life, which may be inconsistent with their preferences. How patients make decisions to have surgery may contribute to this problem of unwanted care. METHODS: We convened 4 focus groups at senior centers and 2 groups of surgeons in Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where we showed a video about a decision regarding a choice between surgery and palliative care. We used qualitative content analysis to identify themes about communication and explanatory models for end-of-life treatment decisions. RESULTS: Seniors (n = 37) and surgeons (n = 17) agreed that maximizing quality of life should guide treatment decisions for older patients. However, when faced with an acute choice between surgery and palliative care, seniors viewed this either as a choice between life and death or a decision about how to die. Although surgeons agreed that very frail patients should not have surgery, they held conflicting views about presenting treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: Seniors and surgeons highly value quality of life, but this notion is difficult to incorporate in acute surgical decisions. Some seniors use these values to consider a choice between surgery and palliative care, whereas others view this as a simple choice between life and death. Surgeons acknowledge challenges framing decisions and describe a clinical momentum that promotes surgical intervention.

"Best Case/Worst Case": Qualitative Evaluation of a Novel Communication Tool for Difficult in-the-Moment Surgical Decisions.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a communication tool called "Best Case/Worst Case" (BC/WC) based on an established conceptual model of shared decision-making. DESIGN: Focus group study. SETTING: Older adults (four focus groups) and surgeons (two focus groups) using modified questions from the Decision Aid Acceptability Scale and the Decisional Conflict Scale to evaluate and revise the communication tool. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 60 and older recruited from senior centers (n = 37) and surgeons from academic and private practices in Wisconsin (n = 17). MEASUREMENTS: Qualitative content analysis was used to explore themes and concepts that focus group respondents identified. RESULTS: Seniors and surgeons praised the tool for the unambiguous illustration of multiple treatment options and the clarity gained from presentation of an array of treatment outcomes. Participants noted that the tool provides an opportunity for in-the-moment, preference-based deliberation about options and a platform for further discussion with other clinicians and loved ones. Older adults worried that the format of the tool was not universally accessible for people with different educational backgrounds, and surgeons had concerns that the tool was vulnerable to physicians' subjective biases. CONCLUSION: The BC/WC tool is a novel decision support intervention that may help facilitate difficult decision-making for older adults and their physicians when considering invasive, acute medical treatments such as surgery.

Recommended patient-reported core set of symptoms and quality-of-life domains to measure in ovarian cancer treatment trials.

There is no consensus as to what symptoms or quality-of-life (QOL) domains should be measured as patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in ovarian cancer clinical trials. A panel of experts convened by the National Cancer Institute reviewed studies published between January 2000 and August 2011. The results were included in and combined with an expert consensus-building process to identify the most salient PROs for ovarian cancer clinical trials. We identified a set of PROs specific to ovarian cancer: abdominal pain, bloating, cramping, fear of recurrence/disease progression, indigestion, sexual dysfunction, vomiting, weight gain, and weight loss. Additional PROs identified in parallel with a group charged with identifying the most important PROs across cancer types were anorexia, cognitive problems, constipation, diarrhea, dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, neuropathy, pain, and insomnia. Physical and emotional domains were considered to be the most salient domains of QOL. Findings of the review and consensus process provide good support for use of these ovarian cancer-specific PROs in ovarian cancer clinical trials.

Engaging Patients at the Front Lines of Primary Care Redesign: Operational Lessons for an Effective Program.

UNLABELLED: Article-at-a-Glance Background: The lack of patient engagement in quality improvement is concerning. As part of an enterprisewide initiative to redesign primary care at UW Health, interdisciplinary primary care teams received training in patient engagement. METHODS: Organizational stakeholders held a structured discussion and used nominal group technique to identify the key components critical to fostering a culture of patient engagement and critical lessons learned. These findings were augmented and illustrated by review of transcripts of two focus groups held with clinic managers and 69 interviews with individual microsystem team members. RESULTS: From late 2009 to 2014, 47 (81%) of 58 teams have engaged patients in various stages of practice improvement projects. Organizational components identified as critical to fostering a culture of patient engagement were alignment of the organization's vision that guided the redesign with national priorities, readily available external experts, involvement of all care team members in patient engagement, integration within an existing continuous improvement team development program, and an intervention deliberately matched to organizational readiness. Critical lessons learned were the need to embed patient engagement into current improvement activities, designate a neutral point person(s) or group to navigate organizational complexities, commit resources to support patient engagement activities, and plan for sustained team-patient interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Current national health care policy and local market pressures are compelling partnering with patients in efforts to improve the value of the health care delivery system. The UW Health experience may be useful for organizations seeking to introduce or strengthen the patient role in designing delivery system improvements.

A survey to examine patient awareness, knowledge, and perceptions regarding the risks and consequences of surgical site infections.

We surveyed patients to determine awareness and knowledge regarding risks and consequences of and prevention of surgical site infection (SSI), and we found that 26% of respondents thought that education for SSI prevention could be improved and that 16% could not recall discussing SSI risks and prevention with a health care worker at all. Only 60% of patients recalled receiving an informational flyer in the hospital. Our results show that better educational and engagement interventions incorporating patient preferences are needed to promote awareness and patient engagement regarding SSI prevention.

Engaging patients in the prevention of health care-associated infections: a survey of patients' awareness, knowledge, and perceptions regarding the risks and consequences of infection with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Clostridium difficile.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections and Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) are major health care-associated infections (HAIs). Little is known about patients' knowledge of these HAIs. Therefore, we surveyed patients to determine awareness, knowledge, and perceptions of MRSA infections and CDI. DESIGN: An interviewer-administered questionnaire. SETTING: A tertiary care academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients who met at least one of the following criteria: at risk of CDI or MRSA infection, current CDI or colonization or current MRSA infection or colonization, or history of CDI or MRSA infection. METHODS: Two unique surveys were developed and administered to 100 patients in 2011. RESULTS: Overall, 76% of patients surveyed were aware of MRSA, whereas 44% were aware of C difficile. The strongest predictor of patients' awareness of these infections was having a history of HAI. Patients with a history of HAI were significantly more likely to have heard of both MRSA (odds ratio, 13.29; 95% confidence interval, 2.84-62.14; P = .001) and C difficile (odds ratio, 9.78; 95% confidence interval, 2.66-35.95; P = .001), than those patients without a history of HAI. There was also a significant positive association between having a history of HAI and greater knowledge of the risk factors, health consequences, and prevention techniques relative to CDI and MRSA infections. CONCLUSIONS: There are additional opportunities to engage patients about the risks and consequences of MRSA and CDIs, particularly those without a history of HAI.