Internal Medicine Residents' Experience Performing Routine Assessment of What Matters Most to Patients Upon Hospital Admission.

PROBLEM: Failure to elicit patients' values, goals, and priorities can result in missed opportunities to provide patient-centered care. Little is known about resident physicians' direct experience of eliciting patients' values, goals, and priorities and integrating them into routine hospital care. INTERVENTION: In 2017, we asked resident physicians on general internal medicine wards rotations to elicit and document a "Personal History" from patients upon hospital admission, in addition to a traditional social history. We defined a Personal History as documenting "what matters most to the patient and why." The purpose of the Personal History was to understand and consider patients' values, goals, and priorities. We then conducted qualitative interviews of the resident physicians to understand their experiences eliciting and integrating patients' values, goals, and priorities in routine hospital care. CONTEXT: We performed this exploratory intervention at a large high-volume urban hospital. Two teams from general medicine wards participated in the Personal History intervention. We conducted voluntary interviews of eligible residents (n = 14/15; 93%) about their experience after they completed their general wards rotations. Using the coproduction model, our aim was to explore how patients' self-expertise can be combined with physicians' medical expertise to achieve patient-centered care. IMPACT: Four major themes were identified: 1) Taking a Personal History had value, and eliciting patients' self-expertise had the potential to change medical decision making, 2) Situational and relational factors created barriers to obtaining a Personal History, 3) Variability in buy-in with the proposed intervention affected effort, and 4) Meaningful Personal History taking could be an adaptive and longitudinal process. Perceived benefits included improved rapport with patients, helpful for patients with complex medical history, and improved physician-patient communication. Barriers included patient distress, lack of rapport, and responses from patients which did not add new insights. Accountability from attending physicians affected resident effort. Suggested future applications were for patients with serious illness, integration into electronic health records, and skills taught in medical education. LESSONS LEARNED: Resident physicians had generally positive views of eliciting a Personal History from patients upon admission to the hospital. Overall, many residents conveyed the perceived ability to elicit and consider patient's values, goals, and priorities in certain situations (e.g., patient not in distress, adequate rapport, lack of competing priorities such as medical emergencies or overwhelming workloads). External factors, such as electronic health record design and accountability from attending physicians, may further promote residents' efforts to routinely incorporate patients' values, goals, and priorities in clinical care. Increasing familiarity among both resident physicians and patients in routinely discussing patients' values, goals, and priorities may facilitate patient-centered practice.

Association of Primary Care Physician Compensation Incentives and Quality of Care in the United States, 2012-2016.

BACKGROUND: Physician compensation incentives may have positive or negative effects on clinical quality. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between various physician compensation incentives on technical indicators of primary care quality. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, nationally representative retrospective analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Visits by adults to primary care physicians in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2012-2016. We analyzed 49,580 sampled visits, representing 1.45 billion primary care visits. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed the association between 5 compensation incentives - quality measure performance, patient experience scores, individual productivity, practice financial performance, or practice efficiency - and 10 high-value and 7 low-value care measures as well as high-value and low-value care composites. KEY RESULTS: Quality measure performance was an incentive in 22% of visits; patient experience scores, 17%; individual productivity, 57%; practice financial performance, 63%; and practice efficiency, 12%. In adjusted models, none of the compensation incentives were consistently associated with individual high- and low-value measures. None of the compensation incentives were associated with high- or low-value care composites. For example, quality measure performance compensation was not significantly associated with high-value care (visits with quality incentive, 47% of eligible measures met; without quality incentive, 43%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.15) or low-value care (aOR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.82-1.19). Physician compensation incentives that might be expected to increase low-value care did not: patient experience (aOR for low-value care composite, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65-1.05), individual productivity (aOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.22), and practice financial performance (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.81-1.36). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective, cross-sectional, nationally representative analysis of care in the United States, physician compensation incentives were not generally associated with more or less high- or low-value care.

A Scoping Review on the Concept of Physician Caring.

BACKGROUND: Physicians' interest in the health and well-being of their patients is a tenet of medical practice. Physicians' ability to act upon this interest by caring for and about their patients is central to high-quality clinical medicine and may affect burnout. To date, a strong theoretical and empirical understanding of physician caring does not exist. To establish a practical, evidence-based approach to improve health care delivery and potentially address physician burnout, we sought to identify and synthesize existing conceptual models, frameworks, and definitions of physician caring. METHODS: We performed a scoping review on physician caring. In November 2019 and September 2020, we searched PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials to identify conceptual models, frameworks, and definitions of physician caring. Eligible articles involved discussion or study of care or caring among medical practitioners. We created a content summary and performed thematic analysis of extracted data. RESULTS: Of 11,776 articles, we reviewed the full text of 297 articles; 61 articles met inclusion criteria. Commonly identified concepts referenced Peabody's "secret of care" and the ethics of care. In bioethics, caring is described as a virtue. Contradictions exist among concepts of caring, such as whether caring is an attitude, emotion, or behavior, and the role of relationship development. Thematic analysis of all concepts and definitions identified six aspects of physician caring: (1) relational aspects, (2) technical aspects, (3) physician attitudes and characteristics, (4) agency, (5) reciprocity, and (6) physician self-care. DISCUSSION: Caring is instrumental to clinical medicine. However, scientific understanding of what constitutes caring from physicians is limited by contradictions across concepts. A unifying concept of physician caring does not yet exist. This review proposes six aspects of physician caring which can be used to develop evidence-based approaches to improve health care delivery and potentially mitigate physician burnout.