Electronic Partner Notification for Sexually Transmitted Infections: A Qualitative Assessment of Patient, Clinical Staff, and State Field Epidemiologist Perspectives.

In Massachusetts (MA), partner notification is routinely offered for new HIV and infectious syphilis cases, but there are no formal partner notification services for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Electronic partner notification (ePN), which allows patients to anonymously notify their partners of sexually transmitted infection exposure, could fill this gap. We evaluated the acceptability of and ideal characteristics for a statewide ePN service in MA. We performed semistructured interviews with patients at a Boston area sexual health clinic and conducted focus groups with clinicians and Massachusetts Department of Public Health Field Epidemiologists (FEs). We developed a codebook and thematically analyzed interview and focus group data; 25% of interviews were double coded. We identified six main themes from our data: (1) partner notification is a relational process and (2) partner notification is situation dependent. There are three pairs of challenges and core values for an effective ePN system: (3) stigmatization versus inclusivity, (4) trust versus mistrust, and (5) privacy versus helpful information sharing. Therefore, (6) a statewide ePN platform must be customizable at each possible step. Although ePN was acceptable across all three groups, the likelihood of individual use was grounded in a patient's sociocultural context, interpersonal relationships, trust in the platform and health authorities, desire to avoid stigmatization, and privacy needs. These factors are best accommodated by a platform that adapts to users' preferences and needs. ePN presents an opportunity to link partners at risk for gonorrhea or chlamydia to clinical care that is complementary to the more labor-intensive FE role.

Care teams misunderstand what most upsets patients about their care.

BACKGROUND: Negative healthcare delivery experiences can cause lasting patient distress and medical service misuse and disuse. Yet no multi-site study has examined whether care-team members understand what most upsets patients about their care. METHODS: We interviewed 373 patients and 360 care-team members in the medical oncology and ambulatory surgery clinics of 11 major healthcare organizations across six U.S. census regions. Patients deeply upset by a service-related experience (n = 99, 27%) answered questions about that experience, while care-team members (n = 360) answered questions about their beliefs regarding what most upsets patients. We performed content analysis to identify memorably upsetting care (MUC) themes; a generalized estimating equation to explore whether MUC theme mention frequencies varied by participant role (care-team member vs. patient), specialty (oncology vs. surgery), facility (academic vs. community), and gender; and logistic regressions to investigate the effects of participant characteristics on individual themes. RESULTS: MUC themes included three systems issues (inefficiencies, access barriers, and facilities problems) and four care-team issues (miscommunication, neglect, coldness, and incompetence). MUC theme frequencies differed by role (all Ps < 0.001), with more patients mentioning care-team coldness (OR = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.23-0.60) and incompetence (OR = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.09-0.31); but more care-team members mentioning system inefficiencies (OR = 7.01; 95% CI, 4.31-11.40) and access barriers (OR, 5.48; 95% CI, 2.81-10.69). CONCLUSIONS: When considering which service experiences most upset patients, care-team members underestimate the impact of their own behaviors and overestimate the impact of systems issues. IMPLICATIONS: Healthcare systems should reconsider how they collect, interpret, disseminate, and respond to patient service reports. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Professional Behavior and Value Erosion: A Qualitative Study of Physicians and the Electronic Health Record.

GOAL: Occurrences of physician burnout have reached epidemic numbers, and the electronic health record (EHR) is a commonly cited cause of the distress. To enhance current understanding of the relationship between burnout and the EHR, we explored the connections between physicians' distress and the EHR. METHODS: In this qualitative study, physicians and graduate medical trainees from two healthcare organizations in California were interviewed about EHR-related distressing events and the impact on their emotions and actions. We analyzed physician responses to identify themes regarding the negative impact of the EHR on physician experience and actions. EHR "distressing events" were categorized using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Physician Professional Competencies. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Every participating physician reported EHR-related distress affecting professional activities. Five main themes emerged from our analysis: system blocks to patient care; poor implementation, design, and functionality of the EHR; billing priorities conflicting with ideal workflow and best-practice care; lack of efficiency; and poor teamwork function. When mapped to the ACGME competencies, physician distress frequently stemmed from situations where physicians prioritized systems-based practice above other desired professional actions and behaviors. Physicians also reported a climate of silence in which physicians would not share problems due to fear of retribution or lack of confidence that the problems would be addressed. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Physicians and administrators need to address the hierarchy of values that prioritizes system requirements such as those required by the EHR above physicians' other desired professional actions and behaviors. Balancing the importance of competing competencies may help to address rising burnout. We also recommend that administrators consider qualitative anonymous interviews as an effective method to uncover and understand physician distress in light of physicians' reported climate of silence.

Can Patient-Provider Interpersonal Interventions Achieve the Quadruple Aim of Healthcare? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Human connection is at the heart of medical care, but questions remain as to the effectiveness of interpersonal interventions. The purpose of this review was to characterize the associations between patient-provider interpersonal interventions and the quadruple aim outcomes (population health, patient experience, cost, and provider experience). METHODS: We sourced data from PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycInfo (January 1997-August 2017). Selected studies included randomized controlled trials and controlled observational studies that examined the association between patient-provider interpersonal interventions and at least one outcome measure of the quadruple aim. Two abstractors independently extracted information about study design, methods, and quality. We characterized evidence related to the objective of the intervention, type and duration of intervention training, target recipient (provider-only vs. provider-patient dyad), and quadruple aim outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-three out of 21,835 studies met the design and outcome inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of research was moderate to high for most included studies; 67% of interventions targeted the provider. Most studies measured impact on patient experience; improvements in experience (e.g., satisfaction, patient-centeredness, reduced unmet needs) often corresponded with a positive impact on other patient health outcomes (e.g., quality of life, depression, adherence). Enhanced interpersonal interactions improved provider well-being, burnout, stress, and confidence in communicating with difficult patients. Roughly a quarter of studies evaluated cost, but the majority reported no significant differences between intervention and control groups. Among studies that measured time in the clinical encounter, intervention effects varied. Interventions with lower demands on provider time and effort were often as effective as those with higher demands. DISCUSSION: Simple, low-demand patient-provider interpersonal interventions may have the potential to improve patient health and patient and provider experience, but there is limited evidence that these interventions influence cost-related outcomes.

Practices to Foster Physician Presence and Connection With Patients in the Clinical Encounter.

Importance: Time constraints, technology, and administrative demands of modern medicine often impede the human connection that is central to clinical care, contributing to physician and patient dissatisfaction. Objective: To identify evidence and narrative-based practices that promote clinician presence, a state of awareness, focus, and attention with the intent to understand patients. Evidence Review: Preliminary practices were derived through a systematic literature review (from January 1997 to August 2017, with a subsequent bridge search to September 2019) of effective interpersonal interventions; observations of primary care encounters in 3 diverse clinics (n = 27 encounters); and qualitative interviews with physicians (n = 10), patients (n = 27), and nonmedical professionals whose occupations involve intense interpersonal interactions (eg, firefighter, chaplain, social worker; n = 30). After evidence synthesis, promising practices were reviewed in a 3-round modified Delphi process by a panel of 14 researchers, clinicians, patients, caregivers, and health system leaders. Panelists rated each practice using 9-point Likert scales (-4 to +4) that reflected the potential effect on patient and clinician experience and feasibility of implementation; after the third round, panelists selected their "top 5" practices from among those with median ratings of at least +2 for all 3 criteria. Final recommendations incorporate elements from all highly rated practices and emphasize the practices with the greatest number of panelist votes. Findings: The systematic literature review (n = 73 studies) and qualitative research activities yielded 31 preliminary practices. Following evidence synthesis, 13 distinct practices were reviewed by the Delphi panel, 8 of which met criteria for inclusion and were combined into a final set of 5 recommendations: (1) prepare with intention (take a moment to prepare and focus before greeting a patient); (2) listen intently and completely (sit down, lean forward, avoid interruptions); (3) agree on what matters most (find out what the patient cares about and incorporate these priorities into the visit agenda); (4) connect with the patient's story (consider life circumstances that influence the patient's health; acknowledge positive efforts; celebrate successes); and (5) explore emotional cues (notice, name, and validate the patient's emotions). Conclusions and Relevance: This mixed-methods study identified 5 practices that have the potential to enhance physician presence and meaningful connection with patients in the clinical encounter. Evaluation and validation of the outcomes associated with implementing the 5 practices is needed, along with system-level interventions to create a supportive environment for implementation.

What is clinician presence? A qualitative interview study comparing physician and non-physician insights about practices of human connection.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the concept and practices of 'clinician presence', exploring how physicians and professionals create connection, engage in interpersonal interaction, and build trust with individuals across different circumstances and contexts. DESIGN: In 2017-2018, we conducted qualitative semistructured interviews with 10 physicians and 30 non-medical professionals from the fields of protective services, business, management, education, art/design/entertainment, social services, and legal/personal services. SETTING: Physicians were recruited from primary care clinics in an academic medical centre, a Veterans Affairs clinic, and a federally qualified health centre. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 55% men and 45% women; 40% were non-white. RESULTS: Qualitative analyses yielded a definition of presence as a purposeful practice of awareness, focus, and attention with the intent to understand and connect with individuals/patients. For both medical and non-medical professionals, creating presence requires managing and considering time and environmental factors; for physicians in particular, this includes managing and integrating technology. Listening was described as central to creating the state of being present. Within a clinic, presence might manifest as a physician listening without interrupting, focusing intentionally on the patient, taking brief re-centering breaks throughout a clinic day, and informing patients when attention must be redirected to administrative or technological demands. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician presence involves learning to step back, pause, and be prepared to receive a patient's story. Building on strategies from physicians and non-medical professionals, clinician presence is best enacted through purposeful intention to connect, conscious navigation of time, and proactive management of technology and the environment to focus attention on the patient. Everyday practice or ritual supporting these strategies could support physician self-care as well as physician-patient connection.

Beyond satisfaction scores: exploring emotionally adverse patient experiences.

OBJECTIVES: Although improving the average patient experience is at the center of recent efforts to make cancer care more patient centered, extreme experiences may be more informative for quality improvement. Little is known about the most deeply dissatisfying experiences that predispose disengagement and negatively influence patient outcomes. We sought to establish a framework for emotionally adverse patient experiences and identify the range of common causes. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study including in-depth interviews and free-text survey comments. METHODS: Thematic analysis of 20 open-ended patient interviews and 2389 free-text survey comments collected in a medical center's cancer clinics. RESULTS: Emotionally adverse experiences were rarely reported in survey comments (96; 4.0%) but more frequently discussed in interviews (12 interview participants). Such experiences were identified through explicit statements of negative emotion, language, syntax, and tone. Among these rare comments, hostility as an indicator was easiest to identify, whereas passive expressions of fear or hopelessness were less reliably identified. We identified 3 mutually inclusive high-level domains of triggers of negative emotion-system issues, technical processes, and interpersonal processes-and 10 themes within those domains. There was wide variation in the causes of emotionally adverse experiences and evidence of a complex interplay of patient expectations and preconditions that influenced the perception of negative experiences. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a taxonomy for classifying emotionally adverse patient experiences expressed in free-text format. Further research should test how perceptions of adverse experiences correspond to recorded ratings of patient satisfaction and subsequent enrollment or utilization.