The path to professionalism: cultivating humanistic values and attitudes in residency training.

Though few question the importance of incorporating professionalism and humanism in the training of physicians, traditional residency programs have given little direct attention to the processes by which professional and humanistic values, attitudes, and behaviors are cultivated. The authors discuss the underlying philosophy of their primary care internal medicine residency program, in which the development of professionalism and humanism is an explicit educational goal. They also describe the specific components of the program designed to create a learner-centered environment that supports the acquisition of professional values; these components include a communication-skills training program, challenging-case conferences, home visits with patients, a resident support group, and a mentoring program. The successful ten-year history of the program shows how a residency program can enable its trainees to develop not only the requisite excellent diagnostic and technical tools and skills but also the humane and professional attributes of the fully competent physician.

Soliciting the patient's agenda: have we improved?

CONTEXT: Previous research indicates physicians frequently choose a patient problem to explore before determining the patient's full spectrum of concerns. OBJECTIVE: To examine the extent to which experienced family physicians in various practice settings elicit the agenda of concerns patients bring to the office. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey using linguistic analysis of a convenience sample of 264 patient-physician interviews. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Primary care offices of 29 board-certified family physicians practicing in rural Washington (n = 1; 3%), semirural Colorado (n = 20; 69%), and urban settings in the United States and Canada (n = 8; 27%). Nine participants had fellowship training in communication skills and family counseling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-physician verbal interactions, including physician solicitations of patient concerns, rate of completion of patient responses, length of time for patient responses, and frequency of late-arising patient concerns. RESULTS: Physicians solicited patient concerns in 199 interviews (75.4%). Patients' initial statements of concerns were completed in 74 interviews (28.0%). Physicians redirected the patient's opening statement after a mean of 23.1 seconds. Patients allowed to complete their statement of concerns used only 6 seconds more on average than those who were redirected before completion of concerns. Late-arising concerns were more common when physicians did not solicit patient concerns during the interview (34.9% vs 14.9%). Fellowship-trained physicians were more likely to solicit patient concerns and allow patients to complete their initial statement of concerns (44% vs 22%). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians often redirect patients' initial descriptions of their concerns. Once redirected, the descriptions are rarely completed. Consequences of incomplete initial descriptions include late-arising concerns and missed opportunities to gather potentially important patient data. Soliciting the patient's agenda takes little time and can improve interview efficiency and yield increased data.

Talking about AIDS.

Despite increased public and professional awareness, patients and physicians tend to avoid discussions about HIV. Empiric studies of patient-physician communication point to specific common communication breakdowns. These include lack of a good opening line, inappropriate context, awkward moments, vague language, and a physician-centered rather than a patient-centered interview style. In effective HIV-related discussions, clinicians elicit the patient's beliefs and concerns first, are organized, use empathy, provide a rationale for the discussion, persist through awkward moments, and clarify vague language. In addition to information about sexual behaviors and the number, gender, and HIV status of partners, clinicians should ask about the context and antecedents to risk behaviors, praise prior attempts to reduce risk, and assess the patient's motivation to change. Although studies indicate that experienced practitioners often do not have these skills, they can be learned.

Awkward moments in patient-physician communication about HIV risk.

BACKGROUND: Physicians frequently encounter patients who are at risk for HIV infection, but they often evaluate risk behaviors ineffectively. OBJECTIVE: To describe the barriers to and facilitators of comprehensive HIV risk evaluation in primary care office visits. DESIGN: Qualitative thematic and sequential analysis of videotaped patient-physician discussions about HIV risk. Tapes were reviewed independently by physician and patient and were coded by the research team. SETTING: Physicians' offices. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 17 family physicians and general internists. Twenty-six consenting patients 18 to 45 years of age who indicated concern about or risks for HIV infection on a 10-item questionnaire administered before the physician visit were included. MEASUREMENTS: A thematic coding scheme and a five-level description of the depth of HIV-related discussion. RESULTS: In 73% of the encounters, physicians did not elicit enough information to characterize patients' HIV risk status. The outcome of HIV-related discussions was substantially influenced by the manner in which the physician introduced the topic, handled awkward moments, and dealt with problematic language and the extent to which the physician sought the patient's perspective. Feelings of ineffectiveness and strong emotions interfered with some physicians' ability to assess HIV risk. Physicians easily recognized problematic communication during reviews of their own videotapes. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive HIV risk discussions included providing a rationale for discussion, effectively negotiating awkward moments, repairing problematic language, persevering with the topic, eliciting the patient's perspective, responding to fears and expectations, and being empathic. Educational programs should use videotape review and should concentrate on physicians' personal reactions to discussing emotionally charged topics.

Readability of self-report clinical outcome measures.

Because the validity of data obtained from self-report clinical outcome measures depends upon the ability of the client to comprehend the inventories, readability was assessed for five frequently employed measures: Beck Depression Inventory, Integra Outpatient Tracking Assessment, MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, Social Adjustment Scale-Self Report, and Symptoms Checklist-90-Revised. The Flesch Reading Ease (RE) formula and a Flesch abstraction formula were applied. The measures are generally shown to be useful for patients with an eighth or ninth grade education, suggesting that outcome researchers must choose only those measures appropriate to the educational background of their clients.

A model of empathic communication in the medical interview.

OBJECTIVE: To formulate an empirically derived model of empathic communication in medical interviews by describing the specific behaviors and patterns of interaction associated with verbal expressions of emotion. DESIGN: A descriptive, qualitative study of verbal exchanges using 11 transcripts and 12 videotapes of primary care office visits to a total of 21 physicians. SETTING: An urban health maintenence organization (HMO), an urban university-based general medicine clinic, and an urban community hospital general medicine clinic. ANALYTIC METHOD: Individual review of transcripts by each research team member to identify instances of expressed or implied emotional themes and to observe the physicians' responses. Individual ratings were compared in group discussions to achieve consensus about the classifications. Similar consensus-based classification was used for review of videotapes. RESULTS: We observed that patients seldom verbalize their emotions directly and spontaneously, tending to offer clues instead. If invited to elaborate, patients may then express the emotional concern directly, and the physician may respond with an accurate and explicit acknowledgment. In most of the interviews, the physicians allowed both clues and direct expressions of affect to pass without acknowledgment, returning instead to the preceding topic, usually the diagnostic exploration of symptoms. With emotional expression so terminated, some patients attempted to raise the topic again, sometimes repeatedly and with escalating intensity. We noted a parallel dynamic for encounters in which patients sought praise. We summarized the full interactional sequence in a simple descriptive model. CONCLUSIONS: This empirically derived model of empathic communication has practical implications for clinicians and students who want to improve their communication and relationship skills. Based on our observations, the basic empathic skills seem to be recognizing when emotions may be present but not directly expressed, inviting exploration of these unexpressed feelings, and effectively acknowledging these feelings so the patient feels understood. The frequent lack of acknowledgment by physicians of both direct and indirect expressions of affect poses a threat to the patient-physician relationship and warrants further study.

The use of videotape in internal medicine training.

By paying attention to the power of the medium and the method of feedback, videotaping programs can be a remarkably successful teaching and research tool. Learners can view their performance, review feedback on their own behavior, knowledge, and displayed attitudes, and develop plans to change behavior that can be followed up on subsequent tappings. In addition, trainees can share important experiences with each other and valued teachers. Interviewing skills can be documented and preserved, creating a video library that allows trainees to actually visualize improvements in their own performances over time. An archive of many such performances allows trainees, faculty, and researchers alike comparative access to the complex challenges of the medical interview.

The doctor-patient relationship and malpractice. Lessons from plaintiff depositions.

BACKGROUND: The current literature does not provide an answer to the question, "What prompts patients to sue doctors or hospitals?" Not all adverse outcomes result in suits, and threatened suits do not always involve adverse outcomes. The exploration of other factors has been hampered by the lack of a methodology to contact plaintiffs and elicit their views about their experience in delivered health care. This study employed the transcripts of discovery depositions of plaintiffs as a source of insight into the issues that prompted individuals to file a malpractice claim. METHODS: This study is a descriptive series review of a convenience sample of 45 plaintiffs' depositions selected randomly from 67 depositions made available from settled malpractice suits filed between 1985 and 1987 against a large metropolitan medical center. Information extracted from each deposition included the alleged injury; the presence of the question, "Why are you suing?" and, if present, the answer; the presence of problematic relationship issues between providers and patients and/or families and, if present, the discourse supporting it; the presence of the question, "Did a health professional suggest maloccurrence?" and, if yes, who. Using a process of consensual validation, relationship issues were organized into groups of more generalized categories suggested by the data. Answers to the questions, "Why are you suing?" and "Who suggested maloccurrence?" are described. RESULTS: Problematic relationship issues were identified in 71% of the depositions with an interrater reliability of 93.3%. Four themes emerged from the descriptive review of the 3787 pages of transcript: deserting the patient (32%), devaluing patient and/or family views (29%), delivering information poorly (26%), and failing to understand the patient and/or family perspective (13%). Thirty-one plaintiffs were asked if health professionals suggested maloccurrence. Fifty-four percent (n = 17) responded affirmatively. The postoutcome-consulting specialist was named in 71% (n = 12) of the depositions in which maloccurrence was allegedly suggested. CONCLUSIONS: In our sample, the decision to litigate was often associated with a perceived lack of caring and/or collaboration in the delivery of health care. The issues identified included perceived unavailability, discounting patient and/or family concerns, poor delivery of information, and lack of understanding the patient and/or family perspective. Particular attention should be paid to the postadverse-event consultant-patient interaction.

Getting the most from a 20-minute visit.

The four core skills--active listening, soliciting attribution, providing support, and establishing agreement--are at the heart of the model of co-participation between physician and patient. Used effectively, they provide a mutually satisfying environment in which psychosocial as well as biologic aspects of a problem can be explored in a humane, caring, and surprisingly efficient way.

The joy of doctoring.

What makes doctoring joyful? Important issues may involve the organization and management of the practice setting; the physician needs to focus on the human aspects of doctoring as well.

Measurement and improvement of humanistic skills in first-year trainees.

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has recently emphasized the development of humanistic skills in trainees. Using video technology, transition outpatient visits of first-year house officers in a primary care training program were evaluated for the presence or absence of nine humanistic skills before and after the initiation of an instructional program to reinforce the skills. Thirteen videotaped PGY-1 encounters constituted the preintervention group and 16 videotaped PGY-1 encounters constituted the postintervention group. The preintervention group performed a mean of 1.38 skills while the postintervention group performed a mean of 3.56 skills, a statistically significant improvement (p less than 0.05). The authors conclude that an educational approach that focuses on specific elements of interactions facilitates the incorporation of skills associated with humane medical care.

Randomized comparison of aztreonam and cefuroxime in gram-negative upper urinary tract infections.

In order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aztreonam in hospitalized patients with upper urinary tract infections (UTI), a comparative clinical study with cefuroxime was performed. 62/60% (aztreonam/cefuroxime) of the patients had a complicating factor, mostly obstructive uropathy. I.v. bolus injections were used at a dose of 1 g aztreonam or 1.5 g cefuroxime t.i.d., for a mean of 8.2 days (range: five to 14 days) except in patients with bacteraemia, who received a mean of 10.3 days (range: seven to 13 days) of therapy. 89% of the patients treated with aztreonam and 87% of those who received cefuroxime showed clinical cure and the bacteriological cure rate at one week post-therapy was 70% and 73% in the respective groups. The relapse/reinfection rate was high with both drugs; bacteriological cure at one month post-therapy was only 43% after aztreonam and 40% after cefuroxime. This suggests that these infections may need longer treatment times. Superinfections, mostly asymptomatic urinary colonization, occurred in 7% and 3%, respectively, and adverse reactions in 23% and 12%, respectively, of the patients treated with aztreonam or cefuroxime, the majority being mild and reversible and only 3% and 3%, respectively, requiring discontinuation of the therapy. The t 1/2 for aztreonam following a 1 g i.v. bolus was 2.0 h in six patients with creatinine clearance above 80 ml/min and 3.0 h in seven patients with creatinine clearance between 35-75 ml/min.