Breast cancer patients' needs and perspectives on a one-on-one peer support program: quantitative and qualitative analyses.

PURPOSE: Although peer support programs as a health resource have become increasingly popular, only limited studies evaluated the added value of one-on-one peer support for breast cancer patients. This study aims to bridge the knowledge gap by focusing on two related research topics. First, we evaluated emotional well-being and (unmet) needs regarding supportive care. Second, we evaluated patients' perspectives on their experiences after having one-on-one peer support. METHODS: A quantitative analysis was conducted to provide insight in patients' symptoms of anxiety and depression (HADS), quality of life (EORTC-QLQ-C30), and supportive care needs (CaSUN-questionnaire). Furthermore, approximately 1 year after the implementation of a one-on-one peer support program, focus groups were conducted to evaluate patients' perspectives regarding one-on-one peer support. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-five of 537 patients diagnosed with breast cancer between 2019 and 2020 completed the questionnaires. Quantitative analysis showed increased symptoms of anxiety and depression among breast cancer patients and lower scores on all EORTC-QLQ-C30 domains compared to the Dutch normative population. Of all patients, 27.6% (95%CI = 0.22-0.34) reported to have unmet needs regarding emotional support and 23.1% (95%CI = 0.18-0.29) reported an unmet need to talk to someone who has experienced breast cancer. For the qualitative analysis, 19 breast cancer patients who were taking part in the one-on-one peer support program participated in three focus groups. Benefits, limitations, and wishes regarding the one-on-one peer support program were discussed. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer patients showed increased anxiety and depression and lower quality of life, physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social functioning compared to the Dutch normative population. Almost one-third of breast cancer patients reported unmet needs regarding emotional support and a desire to talk to other breast cancer patients. These (unmet) needs can successfully be met by providing a low-threshold one-on-one peer support program.

Sharing Reflections on Multisource Feedback in a Peer Group Setting: Stimulating Physicians' Professional Performance and Development.

PURPOSE: Reflecting on and using feedback are important for physicians' continuous professional development (CPD). A common format is the discussion of multisource feedback (MSF) in a one-on-one session with a trusted peer or coach. A new approach is to discuss MSF during a peer group session moderated by a professional facilitator. This qualitative study explored how physicians experience participation in these peer group sessions in the context of their CPD. METHOD: Between March and July 2018, 26 physicians were interviewed about their experiences in a peer group session. These physicians represented 13 monospecialty physician groups from 5 general hospitals in the Netherlands. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed iteratively, following the interpretative phenomenological approach. RESULTS: Participation was experienced as a process of disclosing and sharing personal reflections with peers while striking a balance between interpersonal proximity to and distance from peers. Sharing reflections with peers rendered the feedback more meaningful, deepened collegial relationships, and created a sense of urgency for improvement. Improvement goals were mostly related to relational fine-tuning in collaboration; goals related to individual career management remained in the background. Influential factors for the perceived effectiveness of the group sessions were related to the facilitator's expertise, group size, continuity and quality of collegial relationships, personal vulnerabilities, and the context of CPD policy. CONCLUSIONS: Peer group sessions offered interactivity and established a clear link between individual physicians and their work environments. Sharing reflections on MSF in a peer group setting provided physicians with nuanced insight into their professional performance and fostered a community spirit that supported the implementation of intended changes. Future research should focus on the role of group dynamics and communication strategies and the application of coaching principles, such as drawing up a detailed plan of action and monitoring the follow-up process.

Poor Physician Performance in the Netherlands: Characteristics, Causes, and Prevalence.

INTRODUCTION: Poor physician performance has a profound impact on patient safety and society's trust in the health care system. The attention that this topic has received in the media suggests that it is a large-scale issue. However, research about physician performance is still scant; there is little evidence regarding its prevalence. In terminology, characteristics and causes of poor performance seem to be used synonymously. The aim of this study was to describe (i) characteristics of poor performance, (ii) causes contributing to its onset and continuation, and (iii) prevalence of poor performance among physicians in the Netherlands. METHODS: This is a mixed-methods study involving literature review of 10 electronic databases, review of disciplinary law verdicts, and 12 expert interviews. Each of the 3 methods contributes to the aims of our study. RESULTS: Characteristics of poor performance are predominantly described by deficits in individual physician knowledge, skills, and behavior. Causes of poor performance include aspects such as poor collaboration, lack of criticism, insufficient leadership, and lack of professional development. A prevalence rate of 5% was judged by the experts to be realistic; evidence to underpin this number is lacking. CONCLUSIONS: This study discriminates between characteristics and causes of poor performance. Characteristics of poor performance are related to individual physician aspects. Causes contributing to the onset and continuation of poor performance include not only individual components but also work environment and professional development. Our findings therefore underscore the importance of considering poor performance on a system level rather than as a pure individual physician issue.

A New Multisource Feedback Tool for Evaluating the Performance of Specialty-Specific Physician Groups: Validity of the Group Monitor Instrument.

INTRODUCTION: Since clinical practice is a group-oriented process, it is crucial to evaluate performance on the group level. The Group Monitor (GM) is a multisource feedback tool that evaluates the performance of specialty-specific physician groups in hospital settings, as perceived by four different rater classes. In this study, we explored the validity of this tool. METHODS: We explored three sources of validity evidence: (1) content, (2) response process, and (3) internal structure. Participants were 254 physicians, 407 staff, 621 peers, and 282 managers of 57 physician groups (in total 479 physicians) from 11 hospitals. RESULTS: Content was supported by the fact that the items were based on a review of an existing instrument. Pilot rounds resulted in reformulation and reduction of items. Four subscales were identified for all rater classes: Medical practice, Organizational involvement, Professionalism, and Coordination. Physicians and staff had an extra subscale, Communication. However, the results of the generalizability analyses showed that variance in GM scores could mainly be explained by the specific hospital context and the physician group specialty. Optimization studies showed that for reliable GM scores, 3 to 15 evaluations were needed, depending on rater class, hospital context, and specialty. DISCUSSION: The GM provides valid and reliable feedback on the performance of specialty-specific physician groups. When interpreting feedback, physician groups should be aware that rater classes' perceptions of their group performance are colored by the hospitals' professional culture and/or the specialty.

Physicians' Perceptions of Psychological Safety and Peer Performance Feedback.

INTRODUCTION: For continuous professional development, it is imperative that physicians regularly receive performance feedback from their peers. Research shows that professionals are more proactive in learning and knowledge sharing with peers in teams with more psychological safety. Psychological safety has however not been studied in relation to peers' performance feedback. This study investigated the association between physicians' perceptions of psychological safety and performance feedback received from their peers. METHODS: We invited physicians of cardiology, gastroenterology, obstetrics and gynecology, otorhinolaryngology, pulmonology, neurology, and neurosurgery departments of an academic medical center to participate. Physicians evaluated psychological safety using Edmondson's seven-item validated scale and performance feedback using the adapted four-item feedback subscale of the validated System for Evaluation of Teaching Qualities, including corrective and positive feedback, explanations of feedback, and suggestions for improvement from peers. We analyzed the data using multilevel linear regression analyses adjusted for physicians' sex, years since being certified a medical specialist, and months working in the clinic under the study. RESULTS: This study included 105 physicians (86.8% participated). Psychological safety was positively associated with physicians' perceptions of performance feedback from peers (B = 0.54, 95% confidence interval = 0.34-0.73, P-value <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians who experienced more psychological safety were more likely to receive corrective and positive performance feedback from peers, explanations of feedback, and suggestions for improvement. Medical teams should consider investing in psychological safety to encourage performance feedback from peers, and thus support physicians' continuous professional development and their efforts to provide high-quality patient care.

Investigating Physicians' Views on Soft Signals in the Context of Their Peers' Performance.

BACKGROUND: Physicians are responsible for delivering high quality of care. In cases of underperformance, hindsight knowledge indicates forewarning being potentially available in terms of concerns, signs, or signals. It is not known how the physicians involved perceive such signals. PURPOSE: To openly explore how physicians perceive soft signals and react on them. METHODS: In-depth interviews with 12 hospital-based physicians from various specialties and institutions following the interpretative phenomenological analysis approach. RESULTS: Physicians perceive soft signals as an observable deviation from a colleague's normal behavior, appearance, or communication. Once observed, they evaluate the signal by reflecting on it personally and/or by consulting others, resulting in either an active (i.e., speaking up) or passive (i.e., avoidance) reaction. Observer sensitivity, closeness to the peer, and cohesion of the physician group influence this observation-evaluation-reaction process. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Physicians perceive soft signals as indicators of well-being and collegiality, not as concerns about performance or patient safety. They feel it is their responsibility to be sensitive to and deal with expressed signals. Creating a psychological safe culture could foster such an environment. Because a threat to physicians' well-being may indirectly affect their professional performance, soft signals require serious follow-up.