Fostering Alignment and the Catalytic Potential of Community-Engaged Research With US Military Veterans and Advocates.

This paper explores the concept of "community-engaged research" (CEnR) within the context of Veteran health care delivery and reintegration programs. A multi-sector expert panel (msExP) was formed to evaluate and make recommendations on Veteran community reintegration research and programs. The panel consisted of Veterans, care partners, clinical providers, researchers, community stakeholders, and subject matter experts. The paper examines the composition and lifecycle of the panel, highlighting the characteristics and experiences of the participants. Shifts in the panel's purpose and engagement levels occurred in response to unanticipated disruptions, particularly the COVID-19 pandemic. The transformation of the panel emphasizes the importance of aligning individual and group needs and deepening intrapersonal relationships Findings based on observations, surveys, and interviews with panel members contribute to the field of community-engaged research by demonstrating the utility of catalytic validity that balances group and individual development. As part of a broader study on Veteran reintegration, the panel and its development over time allowed for various perspectives on Veteran experiences and reintegration within the community that shaped the overall project. Despite the challenges of developing and maintaining a panel alongside a research study, feedback from the panel members on their participation provides insight into the potential for future working alliances in community-engaged health research.

Storylines of family medicine II: foundational building blocks-context, community and health.

Storylines of Family Medicine is a 12-part series of thematically linked mini-essays with accompanying illustrations that explore the many dimensions of family medicine, as interpreted by individual family physicians and medical educators in the USA and elsewhere around the world. In 'II: foundational building blocks-context, community and health', authors address the following themes: 'Context-grounding family medicine in time, place and being', 'Recentring community', 'Community-oriented primary care', 'Embeddedness in practice', 'The meaning of health', 'Disease, illness and sickness-core concepts', 'The biopsychosocial model', 'The biopsychosocial approach' and 'Family medicine as social medicine.' May readers grasp new implications for medical education and practice in these essays.

Reducing decisional conflict in decisions about prenatal genetic testing: the impact of a dyadic intervention at the start of prenatal care.

OBJECTIVES: Decisional conflict and regret about prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic tests may have important consequences in the current pregnancy and for future reproductive decisions. Identifying mechanisms that reduce conflict associated with the decision to use or decline these options is necessary for optimal patient counseling. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a shared decision-making tool (NEST) at the beginning of prenatal care. Enrolled patients completed follow-up surveys at the time of testing (QTT) and in the second-third trimester (QFF), including the Decision Conflict Scale (DCS). Total DCS scores were analyzed using a multivariate linear mixed-effect model. RESULTS: Of the total number of participants (n=502) enrolled, 449 completed the QTT and QFF surveys. The mean age of participants was 31.6±3.8, with most parous at the time of study participation (n=321; 71.7 %). Both the NEST (the intervention) and control groups had lower median total DCS scores at QFF (NEST 13.3 [1.7, 25.0] vs. control 16.7 [1.7, 25.0]; p=0.24) compared to QTT (NEST 20.8 [5.0, 25.0] vs. control 18.3 [3.3, 26.7]; p=0.89). Participants exposed to NEST had lower decisional conflict at QFF compared to control (ß -3.889; [CI -7.341, -0.437]; p=0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Using a shared decision-making tool at the start of prenatal care decreased decisional conflict regarding prenatal genetic testing. Such interventions have the potential to provide an important form of decision-making support for patients facing the unique type of complex and preference-based choices about the use of prenatal genetic tests.

Making Meaning Matter: an Editor's Perspective on Publishing Qualitative Research.

The term qualitative research refers to a family of primarily non-numeric methods for describing, analyzing, and interpreting the lived experiences of people in their day to day lives. Originally developed to study social problems such as poverty, juvenile delinquency, and race relations, qualitative research methods have been used in the health sciences since the 1960s to better understand the socialization of medical professionals and the culture of medical education and practice. More recently, qualitative research has been employed in health services research to address and improve the quality and safety of care. While quantitative researchers generally ask "what" or "how many" questions, qualitative researchers generally ask, "why" or "how"? Publishing qualitative research comes with a number of challenges, among them, manuscript length, unfamiliarity of reviewers with qualitative traditions, and sample sizes that, by design, are difficult to generalize from. In addition, while there is general agreement about the quality of evidence and types of research designs used in quantitative studies, the same is not yet the case for qualitative and mixed methods research although a variety of useful guidelines have recently appeared. From the perspective of journal editors, we raise and offer guidance on three important questions: (1) Is the study under review suitable for this journal? (2) What is the rationale for using qualitative methods to carry out the research? (3) What are editors/reviewers looking for in a qualitative submission? In unpacking the third question, we describe common strategies editors use and challenges that we have encountered in the abstract, background, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions sections of qualitative submissions we and our colleagues have reviewed.

Learning from women veterans who navigate invisible injuries, caregiving, and reintegration challenges.

BACKGROUND: As women comprise a greater proportion of military service members, there is growing recognition of how their experiences in the early phase of military to civilian transitions have an important influence on their health and reintegration outcomes. Qualitative accounts of women veterans can inform programs that support transitioning service members. OBJECTIVES: We examined narratives of civilian reintegration among women veterans to understand their experiences of adjusting to community life while coping with mental health challenges. METHODS/PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 16 post-911 era women who were within 5 years of separating from military service and developed a case study based on three participants. MAIN APPROACH: Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted to establish categories about reintegration. Immersion/crystallization techniques were used to identify exemplary cases that illustrated salient themes. KEY RESULTS: Women veterans identified establishing a future career direction, drawing on social support, and navigating health care services as major factors influencing how they adjusted to civilian life. In addition, participants also highlighted the navigation of complex and intersecting identities (i.e., wife, mother, employee, friend, veteran, patient, etc.), further magnified by gender inequalities. These women performed emotional labor, which is often rendered invisible and oriented toward their family and loved ones, while simultaneously monitoring self-care activities. During the early period of reintegration, they described how they felt marginalized in terms of accessing healthcare compared to their military spouses and male veteran peers. CONCLUSIONS: Our case study suggests that there are key gaps in addressing healthcare and readjustment needs for women servicemembers, a high priority VA group, as they transition into post-military life. It is important to consider innovative ways to address specific needs of women in veteran-focused policies and programs.

Modeling Contingency in Veteran Community Reintegration: A Mixed Methods Approach.

Researchers need approaches for analyzing complex phenomena when assessing contingency relationships where specific conditions explain an outcome only when combined with other conditions. Using a mixed methods design, we paired configurational methods and qualitative thematic analysis to model contingency in veteran community reintegration outcomes, identifying combinations of conditions that led to success or lack of success in community reintegration among US military veterans. This pairing allowed for modeling contingency at a detailed level beyond the capabilities of either approach alone. Our analysis revealed multiple contingent relationships at work in explaining reintegration, including social support, purpose, cultural adjustment, and military separation experiences. This study contributes to the field of mixed methods by pairing a mathematical cross-case method with a qualitative method to model contingency.

The impact of COVID-19 on professional identity.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on medical care and medical student education as clinical rotations were halted and students' clinical activities were drastically curtailed. Learning experiences in medical school are known to promote identity formation through teamwork, reflection, and values-based community discussion. This study explored the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical students' professional identity formation (PIF). METHODS: Students in all cohorts of medical education were invited by email in May 2020 to submit a written reflection about their learning experiences and impact of the pandemic on their PIF. We used iterative individual and team reviews, known as the "immersion/crystallisation" method, to code and analyse the data. FINDINGS: Twenty-six students (20%) submitted reflections in which they discussed "changing conceptions of the role and image of a physician," "views about medical education," and the "role of students in a pandemic." Students viewed physicians as altruistic, effective communicators, and pledged to be like them in the future. Their perceptions of virtual learning were mixed, along with considerations of lost interactions with patients, and wanting to be more useful as professionals-in-training. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 has impacted students' views of themselves and reshaped their ideas, both negatively and positively, about the profession they are entering and their role(s) in it. CONCLUSION: Exploring PIF and the impact of disruptions has allowed us to address the issues raised regarding clinical learning now and into the future. Reflection enhances PIF and unexpected events, such as COVID-19, offer opportunities for reflection and development.

ASPIRE: A Program for Developing Clinician Educators' Scholarship, Advancement, and Sense of Community.

INTRODUCTION: Faculty development programs encouraging clinician educators' scholarship have been established at many medical schools. The same is true for programs that address the isolation and loneliness many faculty members feel in their day-to-day clinical work and administration. Few programs have explicitly combined development of scholarship and sense of community. AIM: The goals of the Advanced Scholars Program for Internists in Research and Education (ASPIRE) are as follows: (1) provide training in scholarship development including research methods, implementation, and dissemination; (2) provide expert mentoring and support for professional development; and (3) create a greater sense of campus community. SETTING: ASPIRE scholars are clinician educators in the Department of Medicine at Indiana University School of Medicine. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The program runs 18 months, includes intensive mentoring, covered time for scholars and mentors, resources, and two half-day educational sessions per month focused on scholarship and community development. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Institutional leaders' public statements and actions regarding ASPIRE were documented by program leadership. Data collected from ASPIRE mentors and scholars through interviews and free text survey responses were analyzed using an immersion/crystallization approach. Two central themes were identified for both scholars and mentors: benefits and challenges of the program. Benefits included mentors, program design, community development, increased confidence, skills development, improved patient care, and institutional impact. Challenges included time to accomplish the program, balance of community-building and skills development, and lack of a clear path post-ASPIRE. DISCUSSION: Combining skills-based learning with safe psychological space were judged important elements of success for the ASPIRE program. Conversations are ongoing to identify opportunities for scholars who have completed the program to continue to pursue scholarship, expand their skills, and build community. We conclude that the program both is feasible and was well-received. Sustainability and generalizability are important next steps in ensuring the viability of the program.

Goals of care communication and higher-value care for patients with advanced-stage cancer: A systematic review of the evidence.

CONTEXT: Goals-of-care communication (GOCC) is recommended to increase the value of cancer care near the end of life (EOL). OBJECTIVES: Conduct a systematic review of the evidence that GOCC is associated with higher-value care. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMB Reviews, CINAHL, and PsycInfo from inception to July 2019. We analyzed the population,design, and results and the authors' definitions of GOCC. Risk of bias was assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-two articles were selected. Ten articles reported results from 8 interventions; 17 characterized participants' perspectives; and 5 were retrospective The topics, behaviors, timing, and anticipated outcomes of GOCC varied significantly and were indistinguishable from practices such as advance care planning. GOCC typically focused on treatment outcomes rather than patients' goals. Four of 5 interventions increased evidence of GOCC after clinician training. Only one reported improved patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: No consensus exists about what GOCC entails. There is limited evidence that GOCC increases the value of EOL care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Future studies should focus on how to engage patients in conversations about their personal goals and integrate their goals into care planning. Clinicians can encourage GOCC by explaining how patients' goals influence decisions especially as treatment options become limited.

Personalizing the BioPsychoSocial Approach: "Add-Ons" and "Add-Ins" in Generalist Practice.

Generalist practitioners often find interacting with patients deeply satisfying and joyful; they also experience encounters that are challenging and complex. In both cases, they must be aware of the many issues that affect the processes and outcomes of patient care. Although using the BioPsychoSocial approach is an important, time-tested framework for cultivating one's awareness of patients' presenting concerns, recent developments suggest that additional frames of reference may enhance communication and relationships with patients. In this article, we describe several additions to the BioPsychoSocial approach, considerations we call "add-ons" and "add-ins". We invite generalist practitioners and, indeed, all health care practitioners, to consider how they can improve their ongoing care of patients by personalizing these and other additions in their day-to-day work with patients.

In Search of Medical Professionalism Research: Preliminary Results from a Review of Widely Read Medical Journals.

INTRODUCTION: Professionalism is a core concept in medicine. The extent to which knowledge about professionalism is anchored in empirical research is unknown. Understanding the current state of research is necessary to identify significant gaps and create a road map for future professionalism efforts. The authors conducted an exploratory literature review to characterize professionalism research published in widely read medical journals, identify knowledge gaps, and describe the sources of funding for the identified studies. METHODS: The authors focused on Medline's Abridged Index Medicus and 4 core Medline education-oriented journal and developed a search filter using text words found in the article title or abstract addressing professionalism. Articles were further filtered to include those indicating a research focus. RESULTS: The search strategy resulted in 461 professionalism research articles for analysis. Articles were divided into themes of education (n = 212, 45.9%), performance (n = 83, 18%), measurement development (n = 13, 2.8%), remediation (n = 53, 11.5%), and well-being (n = 100, 21.6%). There were 36 studies from 1980 to 2002 (Era 1: before publication of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies) and 425 from 2003 to 17 (Era 2: after Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education publication of competencies). Professionalism education was the most common topic area, and most studies were from single institutions with results based on convenience samples. Most studies received no funding or were funded by the authors' own institution. DISCUSSION: Little empirical research is available on professionalism in widely read medical journals. There has been limited external research funding available to study this topic. CONCLUSION: More investment in high quality professionalism research is justified and should be encouraged.

"It Matters What I Think, Not What You Say": Scientific Evidence for a Medical Error Disclosure Competence (MEDC) Model.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to validate the ability of a "Medical Error Disclosure Competence" (MEDC) model to predict the effects of physicians' communication skills on error disclosure outcomes in a simulated context. METHOD: A random sample of 721 respondents was assigned to 16 experimental disclosure conditions that tested the MEDC model's constructs across 2 severity conditions (i.e., minor error and sentinel event). RESULTS: Severity did not affect survey respondents' perceptions of the physician's disclosure style. Respondents who viewed the nonverbally skilled disclosure perceived the disclosure as more adequate compared to respondents in the "low nonverbal skill" disclosure condition. Interpersonal adaptability did not affect respondents' adequacy ratings. Consistent with the MEDC model, those who viewed the physician's error disclosure as inadequate indicated that they would be more prone to engage in relational distancing behaviors, while those who rated the disclosure as adequate were more likely to reinvest into their relationship with their physician. These respondents also had higher resilience scores. In the context of a sentinel event, perceived adequacy significantly predicted endorsing legal redress or remedies (e.g., lawsuit). Verbal apology (e.g., "I'm sorry," "I apologize") did not predict any significant variance in the model beyond the physician's nonverbal skill. CONCLUSION: In a simulated disclosure setting, physicians' communicative skills-particularly effective nonverbal communication during a disclosure-trigger outcomes that affect the patient, the physician, and the provider-patient relationship. Findings from this study suggest that MEDC guidelines may be helpful in reducing financial and reputational risks to individual providers and institutions, particularly in the context of a sentinel event.

"If your feelings were hurt, I'm sorry ": How Third-Year Medical Students Observe, Learn From, and Engage in Apologies.

BACKGROUND: Apologies may play a significant role in medical care, especially in the context of patient safety, medical error disclosure, and malpractice. Studies have shown that when state laws, institutional policies, and individual skills align-including the ability to offer a sincere apology-patients and families benefit. However, little is known about how, and under what conditions, physicians offer apologies in day-to-day care. Even less is known about what medical students learn about apologies from observing their superiors in these settings. OBJECTIVE: Characterize third-year medical students' experiences of observing and engaging in apologies. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive analysis of student professionalism narratives. PARTICIPANTS: Third-year medical students at Indiana University School of Medicine. APPROACH: A search of 7,384 unique narratives yielded 238 with apologies. A rubric based on four key elements of genuine apologies ((1) acknowledgement, (2) explanation, (3) regret/remorse, and (4) reparation) was used to classify the kind of apology offered. Apology completeness, impact, and timing were also coded. KEY RESULTS: Seventeen percent of all apologies were complete (i.e., contained all four elements). Over 40% were coded as incomplete or "non-apology" apologies (i.e., those with only the first two elements). A significant relationship between apology completeness and positive student experience was found. Most apologies were offered by the attending physician or resident to patients and family members. Students were generally positive about their experiences, but one in five were coded as negative. Some students were distressed enough to offer apologies on behalf of the faculty. Apology timing did not make a significant difference in terms of student experience. CONCLUSIONS: Few education programs target apologies in the context of routine practice. With little formal instruction, students may rely on adopting what their seniors do. Faculty have an important role to play in modeling the apology process when harms-both great and small-occur.

User testing of a hypospadias decision aid prototype at a pediatric medical conference.

INTRODUCTION: Based on our previous qualitative work, we created a web-based decision aid (DA) prototype to facilitate shared decision-making regarding hypospadias. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to obtain rapid feedback on the prototype as part of an iterative, human-centered design process. METHODS: We conducted this study at a statewide, pediatric educational conference in May 2019, recruiting attendees by verbal/written announcements. The DA consisted of: hypospadias overview and surgery "storyboard," frequently asked questions, parent testimonials, and a values clarification exercise. Participants viewed the DA on a tablet as they participated in semi-structured, qualitative interviews covering website acceptability, usability, and preference for surgical photographs versus illustrations. Three coders used qualitative content analysis to identify themes and resolved disagreements by consensus. RESULTS: Of 295 conference attendees, all 50 who approached us agreed to participate. Responses from 49 participants were available for analysis: 67% female, ages 20-69, 65% Caucasian, 55% MDs. 96% of participants thought the website design matched its purpose; 59.1% preferred surgical illustrations, 8.2% preferred photos, 30.6% preferred both and 2.0% did not like either. Participants recommended improvements in: a) usability/accessibility (e.g. site navigation, visual layout, page length), b) content coverage (e.g. epidemiology, consequences of no/delayed surgery, lifelong risks), c) parent-centeredness (e.g. reading level/writing style) and d) implementation (provider tools, printable handouts). The Extended Summary Figure shows a revised image of the first step of a hypospadias repair based on feedback about participants' preferences for illustrations rather than photographs. DISCUSSION: The main strength of our study was the valuable feedback we obtained to inform critical revisions of the DA prototype. We also demonstrated the feasibility and efficacy of a conducting a usability evaluation of a web-based DA in a medical conference setting. One limitation of this study is that the relatively small population sampled limits generalizability and our findings may not reflect the views of all providers who care for hypospadias patients. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of providers thought that the design of the Hypospadias Homepage matched its purpose and most preferred surgical illustrations rather than photos to demonstrate the steps of hypospadias surgery. Based on their feedback, we plan to focus our efforts in the following areas: 1) improvement of navigation/menus, 2) reduction in the amount of text per page, 3) expansion of specific content coverage and 4) inclusion of "parent-friendly" visuals such as infographics to represent quantitative data and colorful illustrations to depict hypospadias and its surgical repair.

Insecure messaging: how clinicians approach potentially problematic messages from patients.

OBJECTIVE: Secure messaging has become an integrated function of patient portals, but misuse of secure messaging by both patients and clinicians can lead to miscommunication and errors, such as overlooked urgent messages. We sought to uncover variations in clinician approaches and responses to messaging with patients. METHODS: In this two-part study, 20 primary care clinicians (1) composed message responses to five hypothetical patient vignettes and messages and (2) were subsequently interviewed for their perspectives on appropriate circumstances for secure messaging. Messages and interviews were analyzed for themes. RESULTS: Clinicians have different experiences with, and perceptions of, secure messaging. The messages the clinicians wrote were uniformly respectful, but differed in degrees of patient-centeredness and level of detail. None of the clinicians found their messaging workload to be unmanageable. From the interviews, we found divergent clinician perspectives about when to use secure messaging and how to respond to emotional content. CONCLUSION: Clinicians have different opinions about the appropriateness of secure messaging in response to specific medical issues. Our results noted a desire and need for greater guidance about secure messaging. This aspect of informatics education warrants greater attention in clinical practice. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: We summarize the types of issues raised by the participants yet to be addressed by existing guidelines. Further guidance from hospitals, professional societies, and other institutions that govern clinician behavior on the appropriateness and effectiveness of delivering care through secure messaging may aid clinicians and patients.

"Won't You Be My Doctor?": Four Keys to a Satisfying Relationship in an Increasingly Virtual World.

Despite rapid technological advances in healthcare, medicine is still largely practiced in a doctor's office one conversation at a time. This reality is changing rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic as face-to-face conversations with primary care practitioners are being replaced by virtual visits conducted by phone or video conferencing. Communication challenges in patient-practitioner relationships exist in face-to-face visits and they are accentuated in virtual ones. Absent a physical examination and other sensory data, conversation is the primary means by which safe, satisfying care depends. We present 4 steps to help patients and practitioners work together to obtain optimal results from virtual or face-to-face visits, summarized by the acronym PREP: Prepare, Rehearse, Engage, and Persist. Based on 80 years of combined clinical practice and research, we recommend strategies to help bridge the gap between what patients want and deserve in their medical visits and practitioners' understanding of their patients' concerns.

Professionalism as the Bedrock of High-Value Care.

"High-value care" has become a popular mantra and a call to action among health system leaders, policymakers, and educators who are advocating widespread practice changes to reduce costs, minimize overuse, and optimize outcomes in the United States. Regrettably, current research does not demonstrate significant progress in improving high-value care. Many investigators have looked to payment models, benefit design, and policy changes as the main levers to reduce low-value care delivery; thus, the prevailing approach to ensuring high-value care has been to identify and limit low-value services. This approach has a clear limitation: The number of identified low-value services has become too high for individual physicians to track. Using professionalism as a key driver of practice change presents an important opportunity to shift from a deficit-based reactive model to one that is proactive and uses the concepts of intrinsic motivation and medical stewardship to effect high-value care. Transforming aspirational values such as professionalism into actions that engage all physician stakeholders regardless of their position or influence, and regardless of system agility or payment structure, has the potential for bringing about real change. These concepts can be integrated into medical education, introduced early in training, and modeled by educators to drive long-term sustainable change. Physicians can, and should, embrace professionalism as the motivation for redesigning care. Payment reform incentives that align with their professional values should follow and encourage these efforts; that is, payment reform should not be the impetus for redesigning care.

Blame and its consequences for healthcare professionals: response to Tigard.

Tigard (2019) suggests that the medical community would benefit from continuing to promote notions of individual responsibility and blame in healthcare settings. In particular, he contends that blame will promote systematic improvement, both on the individual and institutional levels, by increasing the likelihood that the blameworthy party will 'own up' to his or her mistake and apologise. While we agree that communicating regret and offering a genuine apology are critical steps to take when addressing patient harm, the idea that medical professionals should continue to 'take the blame' for medical errors flies in the face of existing science and threatens to do more harm than good. We contrast Dr Tigard's approach with the current literature on blame to promote an alternative strategy that may help to create lasting change in the face of unfortunate error.

Reflecting on shared decision making: A reflection-quantification study.

BACKGROUND: Reflecting ("stop-and-think") before rating may help patients consider the quality of shared decision making (SDM) and mitigate ceiling/halo effects that limit the performance of self-reported SDM measures. METHODS: We asked a diverse patient sample from the United States to reflect on their care before completing the 3-item CollaboRATE SDM measure. Study 1 focused on rephrasing CollaboRATE items to promote reflection before each item. Study 2 used 5 open-ended questions (about what went well and what could be improved upon, signs that the clinician understood the patient's situation, how the situation will be addressed, and why this treatment plan makes sense) to invite reflection before using the whole scale. A linear analogue scale assessed the extent to which the plan of care made sense to the patient. RESULTS: In Study 1, 107 participants completed surveys (84% response rate), 43 (40%) rated a clinical decision of which 27 (63%) after responding to reflection questions. Adding reflection lowered CollaboRATE scores ("less" SDM) and reduced the proportion of patients giving maximum (ceiling) scores (not statistically significant). In Study 2, 103 of 212 responders (49%) fully completed the version containing reflection questions. Reflection did not significantly change the distribution of CollaboRATE scores or of top scores. Participants indicated high scores on the sense of their care plan (mean 9.7 out of 10, SD 0.79). This rating was weakly correlated with total CollaboRATE scores (rho = .4, P = .0001). CONCLUSION: Reflection-before-quantification interventions may not improve the performance of patient-reported measures of SDM with substantial ceiling/halo effects.

Six habits of highly successful health information technology: powerful strategies for design and implementation.

Healthcare information technologies are now a routine component of patient-clinician interactions. Originally designed for operational functions including billing and regulatory compliance, these systems have had unintended consequences including increased exam room documentation, divided attention during the visit, and use of scribes to alleviate documentation burdens. In an age in which technology is ubiquitous in everyday life, we must re-envision healthcare technology to support both clinical operations and, above all, the patient-clinician relationship. We present 6 habits for designing user-centered health technologies: (1) put patient care first, (2) assemble a team with the right skills, (3) relentlessly ask WHY, (4) keep it simple, (5) be Darwinian, and (6) don't lose the forest for the trees. These habits should open dialogues between developers, implementers, end users, and stakeholders, as well as outline a path for better, more usable technology that puts patients and their clinicians back at the center of care.