Assessing Interpersonal Relationships in Medical Education: the Connection Index.

OBJECTIVE: The relationship between a resident physician and his/her supervising attending is foundational to graduate medical education and may impact the clinical learning environment and resident well-being. This paper focuses on how to measure connection between a resident and their clinical supervisor. Connection includes the subdomains of psychological safety, empathy, educational alliance, and feedback. METHODS: After reviewing the literature, the authors designed the 12-item, 7-point Connection Index (CI12) to quantitatively measure connections between a resident and his/her supervisor during a 6-month period (supervision dyad), and based on educational alliance, empathy, psychological safety, and effective feedback. A 9-criteria evaluation framework was applied to assess its reliability and validity on a sample of psychiatry residents at a residency program, July 2016 through June 2018. RESULTS: Out of a total possible number of 50 residents, 100% participated to rate 41 supervisors over 201 supervision dyads; the CI12 satisfied all eight of the eight testable criteria, including high scalability (H = 0.78), consistency (alpha = 0.98), test-retest validity (ICC = 0.95), and construct validity where CI12 was found to have statistically significant correlations with outcomes measures (greater connection was associated with less negative emotional experiences, less mistreatment or bias, less burnout, and higher attendance to supervision sessions). CONCLUSION: The authors showed the CI12 can be a valid and reliable instrument to quantify whether a resident and his/her supervisor connects during a 6-month supervision with respect to empathy, psychological safety, educational alliance, and feedback. We recommend assessing connections as part of the overall evaluation of a resident's experience with the clinical learning environment.

Evaluation of the Healthcare Cost Offsets of Mend: A Family Systems Mental Health Integration Approach.

Behavioral and physical health integration has been shown to be beneficial for overall health outcomes, as well as financial benefits. The current research clearly shows benefits, but lacks evidence specific to couples and family therapy (CFT) as a medium or profession within mental health integrated sites. This study tests the cost offsets of Mastering Each New Directions (MEND), a family system psychosocial approach to chronic illness (CI). Using retrospective charges from 107 CI adult patients, MEND (with an average of 25 sessions) was estimated to produce a 12-month cost savings of $16,684 or a 34.3% reduction in healthcare costs. This reduction significantly outweighed the cost of the intervention for a total net savings of $9,251 per participant in 12 months. Variations in cost reductions by demographic and treatment dosage are explored, and results suggest that a family systems psychosocial intervention can offer a health system an overall cost savings.

Se ha demostrado que la integración de la salud conductual y física es beneficiosa para los resultados en la salud en general, y que a su vez tiene beneficios económicos. La presente investigación muestra claramente beneficios, pero carece de indicios específicos para la terapia familiar y de pareja como medio o profesión dentro de centros integrados de salud mental. Este estudio evalúa los costos y la compensación de Mastering Each New Directions (MEND), un enfoque psicosocial de sistemas familiares para las enfermedades crónicas. Utilizando los gastos retrospectivos de 107 pacientes adultos con enfermedades crónicas, se calculó que el enfoque MEND (con un promedio de 25 sesiones) produce ahorros de $16.684 en los costos de 12 meses o una reducción del 34,3 % en los costos de asistencia sanitaria. Esta reducción sobrepasó considerablemente el costo de la intervención por un total de ahorros netos de $9251 por participante en 12 meses. Se analizan las variaciones en las reducciones de costos por dosis demográfica y de tratamiento, y los resultados sugieren que una intervención psicosocial de sistemas familiares puede ofrecer ahorros en los costos generales del sistema de salud.

Calibration Bias and the Interpretation of Clinical Learning Environment Perceptions Surveys.

BACKGROUND: The clinical learning environment (CLE) is frequently assessed using perceptions surveys, such as the AAMC Graduation Questionnaire and ACGME Resident/Fellow Survey. However, these survey responses often capture subjective factors not directly related to the trainee's CLE experiences. OBJECTIVE: The authors aimed to assess these subjective factors as "calibration bias" and show how it varies by health professions education discipline, and co-varies by program, patient-mix, and trainee factors. METHODS: We measured calibration bias using 2011-2017 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Learners' Perceptions Survey data to compare medical students and physician residents and fellows (n = 32 830) with nursing (n = 29 758) and allied and associated health (n = 27 092) trainees. RESULTS: Compared to their physician counterparts, nursing trainees (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22-1.40) and allied/associated health trainees (1.18, 1.12-1.24) tended to overrate their CLE experiences. Across disciplines, respondents tended to overrate CLEs when reporting 1 higher level (of 5) of psychological safety (3.62, 3.52-3.73), 1 SD more time in the CLE (1.05, 1.04-1.07), female gender (1.13, 1.10-1.16), 1 of 7 lower academic level (0.95, 1.04-1.07), and having seen the lowest tercile of patients for their respective discipline who lacked social support (1.16, 1.12-1.21) and had low income (1.05, 1.01-1.09), co-occurring addictions (1.06, 1.02-1.10), and mental illness (1.06, 1.02-1.10). CONCLUSIONS: Accounting for calibration bias when using perception survey scores is important to better understand physician trainees and the complex clinical learning environments in which they train.