A Qualitative Study of Emergency Physicians' and Nurses' Experiences Caring for Patients With Psychiatric Conditions and/or Substance Use Disorders.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Patients with psychiatric conditions and/or substance use disorders (SUDs) frequently seek care in emergency departments (EDs), where providing care for these populations can involve considerable challenges. This study aimed to develop a comprehensive data-driven model of the complex challenges and unique dynamics associated with caring for these populations in the ED, as well as the effect on patient care quality. METHODS: We conducted a preplanned topical analysis of grounded theory data obtained from semistructured interviews with 86 ED physicians and nurses from 8 hospitals in the Northeastern USA. Participants provided detailed descriptions of their experiences and challenges in caring for patients with psychiatric conditions and/or SUDs. We identified themes inductively using constant comparative analysis and developed a grounded model of physicians' and nurses' perceptions of challenges, biases, and effects on patient care. RESULTS: Emergency physicians and nurses described emotional, diagnostic, and logistical challenges that patients with psychiatric conditions and/or SUDs present. These challenges are magnified by existing health care system issues and social structures, which fuel and reinforce negative attitudes, expectations, and biases. In combination, these processes create negative health care experiences for patients, physicians, and nurses and can adversely affect patient care quality and ED staff well-being. CONCLUSION: Our findings uncover a cyclical process whereby challenges and biases associated with patients with psychiatric conditions and/or SUDs can reciprocally threaten patient care quality. Systemic changes and localized interventions are urgently needed to mitigate challenges, reduce bias, improve patient care, and improve physicians' and nurses' experiences in the ED.

What do emergency department physicians and nurses feel? A qualitative study of emotions, triggers, regulation strategies, and effects on patient care.

BACKGROUND: Despite calls to study how healthcare providers' emotions may impact patient safety, little research has addressed this topic. The current study aimed to develop a comprehensive understanding of emergency department (ED) providers' emotional experiences, including what triggers their emotions, the perceived effects of emotions on clinical decision making and patient care, and strategies providers use to manage their emotions to reduce patient safety risks. METHODS: Employing grounded theory, we conducted 86 semi-structured qualitative interviews with experienced ED providers (45 physicians and 41 nurses) from four academic medical centres and four community hospitals in the Northeastern USA. Constant comparative analysis was used to develop a grounded model of provider emotions and patient safety in the ED. RESULTS: ED providers reported experiencing a wide range of emotions in response to patient, hospital, and system-level factors. Patients triggered both positive and negative emotions; hospital and system-level factors largely triggered negative emotions. Providers expressed awareness of possible adverse effects of negative emotions on clinical decision making, highlighting concerns about patient safety. Providers described strategies they employ to regulate their emotions, including emotional suppression, distraction, and cognitive reappraisal. Many providers believed that these strategies effectively guarded against the risk of emotions negatively influencing their clinical decision making. CONCLUSION: The role of emotions in patient safety is in its early stages and many opportunities exist for researchers, educators, and clinicians to further address this important issue. Our findings highlight the need for future work to (1) determine whether providers' emotion regulation strategies are effective at mitigating patient safety risk, (2) incorporate emotional intelligence training into healthcare education, and (3) shift the cultural norms in medicine to support meaningful discourse around emotions.