Physician Perceptions of Performance Feedback and Impact on Personal Well-Being: A Qualitative Exploration of Patient Satisfaction Feedback in Neurology.

BACKGROUND: To understand neurologists' experiences and perspectives on patient satisfaction feedback and its impact on personal well-being and behavior. METHODS: From May to June 2021, the researchers conducted 19 semistructured interviews with neurologists from a large academic medical center. Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory informed a combined inductive and deductive thematic analysis of the qualitative data, which focused on perceptions of current feedback practices, its impact on physician behavior, and recommendations for improvement. RESULTS: Participants tended to be female (n = 12/19, 63.2%), aged 30-39 (n = 8/19, 42.1%), white (n = 9/19, 47.4%), and were 10+ years into clinical practice (n = 18/19, 94.7%). Physicians were receptive to feedback overall, but perceptions varied by feedback type. Physicians preferred informal feedback (delivered unprompted directly by patients), given its tendency toward actionability. They disliked formal feedback (derived from anonymous surveys) due to low actionability, bias and validity issues, lack of contextual considerations, delivery through public reports, and links to financial incentives. Nearly all physicians reported formal feedback programs had the potential to negatively affect well-being and were not beneficial to their practice; a few reported adjusting their clinical practice to improve patient satisfaction performance. Five recommendations to improve patient satisfaction feedback programs emerged: Align on feedback intent, acknowledge survey limitations during program administration, increase actionability of feedback through specificity and control, support direct patient-physician feedback and problem resolution, and support empathetic integration of feedback. CONCLUSION: Understanding physician perceptions of current approaches to patient satisfaction feedback offers the opportunity to shape subsequent collection and distribution methods to improve physician performance and optimize professional fulfillment.

Patient Perspectives of Inpatient Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine has been adopted in the inpatient setting to facilitate clinical interactions between on-site clinicians and isolated hospitalized patients. Such remote interactions have the potential to reduce pathogen exposure and use of personal protective equipment but may also pose new safety concerns given prior evidence that isolated patients can receive suboptimal care. Formal evaluations of the use and practical acceptance of inpatient telemedicine among hospitalized patients are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the experience of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with inpatient telemedicine introduced as an infection control measure during the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative evaluation in a COVID-19 designated non-intensive care hospital unit at a large academic health center (Stanford Health Care) from October 2020 through January 2021. Semistructured qualitative interviews focused on patient experience, impact on quality of care, communication, and mental health. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants representing diversity across varying demographics until thematic saturation was reached. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using an inductive-deductive approach. RESULTS: Interviews with 20 hospitalized patients suggested that nonemergency clinical care and bridging to in-person care comprised the majority of inpatient telemedicine use. Nurses were reported to enter the room and call on the tablet far more frequently than physicians, who typically entered the room at least daily. Patients reported broad acceptance of the technology, citing improved convenience and reduced anxiety, but preferred in-person care where possible. Quality of care was believed to be similar to in-person care with the exception of a few patients who wanted more frequent in-person examinations. Ongoing challenges included low audio volume, shifting tablet location, and inconsistent verbal introductions from the clinical team. CONCLUSIONS: Patient experiences with inpatient telemedicine were largely favorable. Although most patients expressed a preference for in-person care, telemedicine was acceptable given the circumstances associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Improvements in technical and care team use may enhance acceptability. Further evaluation is needed to understand the impact of inpatient telemedicine and the optimal balance between in-person and virtual care in the hospital setting.