Gender influences resident physicians' perception of an employee-to-employee recognition program: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Burnout is prevalent in medical training. While some institutions have implemented employee-to-employee recognition programs to promote wellness, it is not known how such programs are perceived by resident physicians, or if the experience differs among residents of different genders. METHODS: We used convergent mixed methods to characterize how residents in internal medicine (IM), pediatrics, and general surgery programs experience our employee-to-employee recognition ("Hi-5″) program. We collected Hi-5s received by residents in these programs from January 1, 2021-December 31, 2021 and coded them for recipient discipline, sex, and PGY level and sender discipline and professional role. We conducted virtual focus groups with residents in each training program. MAIN MEASURES AND APPROACH: We compared Hi-5 receipt between male and female residents; overall and from individual professions. We submitted focus group transcripts to content analysis with codes generated iteratively and emergent themes identified through consensus coding. RESULTS: Over a 12-month period, residents received 382 Hi-5s. There was no significant difference in receipt of Hi-5s by male and female residents. Five IM, 3 surgery, and 12 pediatric residents participated in focus groups. Residents felt Hi-5s were useful for interprofessional feedback and to mitigate burnout. Residents who identified as women shared concerns about differing expectations of professional behavior and communication based on gender, a fear of backlash when behavior does not align with gender stereotypes, and professional misidentification. CONCLUSIONS: The "Hi-5" program is valuable for interprofessional feedback and promotion of well-being but is experienced differently by men and women residents. This limitation of employee-to-employee recognition should be considered when designing equitable programming to promote well-being and recognition.

Discussion-based interprofessional education: A positive step toward promoting shared understanding between surgical residents and nurses.

Interprofessional education during medical training may improve communication by promoting collaboration and the development of shared mental models between professions. We implemented a novel discussion-based intervention for surgical residents and nurses to promote mutual understanding of workflows and communication practices. General surgery residents and inpatient nurses from our institution were recruited to participate. Surveys and paging data were collected prior to and following the intervention. Surveys contained original questions and validated subscales. Interventions involved facilitated discussions about workflows, perceptions of urgency, and technology preferences. Discussions were recorded and transcribed for qualitative content analysis. Pre and post-intervention survey responses were compared with descriptive sample statistics. Group characteristics were compared using Fisher's exact tests. Eleven intervention groups were conducted (2-6 participants per group) (n = 38). Discussions achieved three aims: Information-Sharing (learning about each other's workflows and preferences), 2) Interpersonal Relationship-Building (establishing rapport and fostering empathy) and 3) Interventional Brainstorming (discussing strategies to mitigate communication challenges). Post-intervention surveys revealed improved nurse-reported grasp of resident schedules and tailoring of communication methods based on workflow understanding; however, communication best practices remain limited by organizational and technological constraints. Systems-level changes must be prioritized to allow intentions toward collegial communication to thrive.

Identifying Patterns in Preoperative Communication about High-Risk Surgical Intervention: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Surgeons are entrusted with providing patients with information necessary for deliberation about surgical intervention. Ideally, surgical consultations generate a shared understanding of the treatment experience and determine whether surgery aligns with a patient's overall health goals. In-depth assessment of communication patterns might reveal opportunities to better achieve these objectives. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of audio-recorded consultations between surgeons and patients considering high-risk surgery. For 43 surgeons, we randomly selected 4 transcripts each of consultations with patients aged ≥60 y with at least 1 comorbidity. We developed a coding taxonomy, based on principles of informed consent and shared decision making, to categorize surgeon speech. We grouped transcripts by treatment plan and recorded the treatment goal. We used box plots, Sankey diagrams, and flow diagrams to characterize communication patterns. RESULTS: We included 169 transcripts, of which 136 discussed an oncologic problem and 33 considered a vascular (including cardiac and neurovascular) problem. At the median, surgeons devoted an estimated 8 min (interquartile range 5-13 min) to content specifically about intervention including surgery. In 85.5% of conversations, more than 40% of surgeon speech was consumed by technical descriptions of the disease or treatment. "Fix-it" language was used in 91.7% of conversations. In 79.9% of conversations, no overall goal of treatment was established or only a desire to cure or control cancer was expressed. Most conversations (68.6%) began with an explanation of the disease, followed by explanation of the treatment in 53.3%, and then options in 16.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Explanation of disease and treatment dominate surgical consultations, with limited time spent on patient goals. Changing the focus of these conversations may better support patients' deliberation about the value of surgery.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02623335. HIGHLIGHTS: In decision-making conversations about high-risk surgical intervention, surgeons emphasize description of the patient's disease and potential treatment, and the use of "fix-it" language is common.Surgeons dedicated limited time to eliciting patient preferences and goals, and 79.9% of conversations resulted in no explicit goal of treatment.Current communication practices may be inadequate to support deliberation about the value of surgery for individual patients and their families.

Best Case/Worst Case: protocol for a multisite randomised clinical trial of a scenario planning intervention for patients with kidney failure.

INTRODUCTION: Given the burdens of treatment and poor prognosis, older adults with kidney failure would benefit from improved decision making and palliative care to clarify goals, address symptoms, and reduce unwanted procedures. Best Case/Worst Case (BC/WC) is a communication tool that uses scenario planning to support patients' decision making. This article describes the protocol for a multisite, cluster randomised trial to test the effect of training nephrologists to use the BC/WC communication tool on patient receipt of palliative care, and quality of life and communication. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are enrolling attending nephrologists, at 10 study sites in the USA, who see outpatients with advanced chronic kidney disease considering dialysis. We aim to enrol 320 patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of ≤24 mL/min/1.73 m2 who are age 60 and older and have a predicted survival of 18 months or less. Nephrologists will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive training to use the communication tool (intervention) at study initiation or after study completion (wait-list control). Patients in the intervention group will receive care from a nephrologist trained to use the BC/WC communication tool. Patients in the control group will receive usual care. Using chart review and surveys of patients and caregivers, we will test the efficacy of the BC/WC intervention with receipt of palliative care as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes include intensity of treatment at the end of life, the effect of the intervention on quality of communication (QOC) between nephrologists and patients (using the QOC scale), the change in quality of life (using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative Care scale) and receipt of dialysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals have been granted by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Wisconsin (ID: 2022-0193), with each study site ceding review to the primary IRB. All nephrologists will be consented and given a copy of the consent form. No patients or caregivers will be recruited or consented until their nephrology provider has chosen to participate in the study. Results will be disseminated via submission for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and at national meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04466865.

Impact of Care Coordination on the Content of Communication Between Surgeons and Patients With Rectal Cancer.

Management of patients with rectal cancer can be complex, requiring significant care coordination and decisions that balance functional and oncologic outcomes. Objective: To characterize care coordination occurring during surgical consultation for rectal cancer and consequences of using face-to-face time in clinic for care coordination. Methods: Secondary analysis was performed on audio recordings of clinic visits with colorectal surgeons to discuss surgery for rectal cancer at 5 academic medical centers. Analysis included the content of communication related to types of care coordination, specific details and conditions under which care coordination was conducted, and consequences. Results: The cohort included 18 patients seen by 8 surgeons. Care coordination consumed much of the conversation; on average 23.7% (SD 14.6) of content. Communication about care coordination included gathering information from work-up already performed, logistics for completing further work-up, gathering multidisciplinary opinions, and logistics for treatment planning. Obtaining imaging results was particularly challenging and surgeons went to great lengths to gather this information. To mitigate information gaps, surgeons asked patients about critical clinical details. Patients expressed remorse when they could not provide needed information, relay technical details, or had missing reports. Surgeons voiced frustration at the system related to the need to gather information from multiple sources and coordinate logistics. Surgeons worked to inform patients about their disease and discuss important lifestyle and cancer-related tradeoffs. However, the ability to solicit patient input and engage in shared decision making was often limited by incomplete data or conditioned on approval by a multidisciplinary tumor board. Conclusion: Much of the conversation between surgeons and patients with rectal cancer is consumed by care coordination. Organizing care coordination outside of the clinic visit would likely improve the experience for both patients and surgeons, addressing both clinician burnout and variation in management and outcomes.

Applying VitalTalkTM Techniques to Best Case/Worst Case Training to Increase Scalability and Improve Surgeon Confidence in Shared Decision-making.

OBJECTIVE: Best Case/Worst Case (BC/WC) is a communication tool designed to promote shared decision-making for high-risk procedures near the end of life. This study aimed to increase scalability of a BC/WC training program and measure its impact on surgeon confidence in and perceived importance of the methodology. DESIGN: A prospective cohort pre-post study; December 2018 to January 2019. SETTING: Multi-center tertiary care teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-eight resident surgeons from general surgery and otolaryngology. RESULTS: Learners were 24 to 37 years old with 52% in post graduate year 1 to 2. Although learners encountered high-stakes communication (HSC) frequently (3.6 [0.7] on 5-point Likert scale), most reported no HSC training in medical school (74.5%) or residency (87.5%). BC/WC training was accomplished with an instructor to learner ratio of 1-to-5.3. After training, learner confidence improved on all measured communication skills on a 5-point scale (e.g., exploring patient's values increased from 3.6 [0.8] to 4.1 [0.6], p = <0.0001); average within-person improvement was 0.72 (0.6) points across all skills. Perceived importance improved across all skills (e.g., basing a recommendation on patient's values increased from 4.4 [0.8] to 4.8 [0.5], p = 0.0009); average within-person improvement was 0.46 (0.5) points across all skills. Learners reported this training would likely help them in future interactions (4.4 [0.73] on 5-point scale) and 95.2% recommended it be offered to resident physicians in other residency programs and to attending surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Formal training in BC/WC increases learners' perception of both the importance of HSC skills and their confidence in exercising those skills in clinical practice. VitalTalkTM methodology permitted scaling training to 5.3 learners per instructor and was highly recommended for other surgeons. Ongoing training, such as this, may support more patient-centered decision-making and care.

Best case/worst case for the trauma ICU: Development and pilot testing of a communication tool for older adults with traumatic injury.

BACKGROUND: "Best Case/Worst Case" (BC/WC) is a communication tool to support shared decision making in older adults with surgical illness. We aimed to adapt and test BC/WC for use with critically ill older adult trauma patients. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with 48 trauma clinicians in Wisconsin, Texas, and Oregon. We used qualitative content analysis to characterize feedback and adapted the tool to fit this setting. Using rapid sequence iterative design, we developed an implementation tool kit. We pilot tested this intervention at two trauma centers using a pre-post study design with older trauma patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Main outcome measures included study feasibility, intervention acceptability, quality of communication, and clinician moral distress. RESULTS: BC/WC for trauma patients uses a graphic aid to document major events over time, illustrate plausible scenarios, and convey uncertainty. We enrolled 86 of 116 eligible patients and their surrogates (48 pre/38 postintervention). The median patient age was 72 years (51-95 years) and mean Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score was 126.1 (±30.6). We trained 43 trauma attendings and trauma fellows to use the intervention. Ninety-four percent could perform essential tool elements after training. The median end-of-life communication score (scale 0-10) improved from 4.5 to 6.6 (p = 0.006) after intervention as reported by family and from 4.1 to 6.0 (p = 0.03) as reported by nurses. Moral distress did not change. However, there was improvement (less distress) reported by physicians regarding "witnessing providers giving false hope" from 7.34 to 5.03 (p = 0.022). Surgeons reported the tool put multiple clinicians on the same page and was useful for families, but tedious to incorporate into rounds. CONCLUSION: BC/WC trauma ICU is acceptable to clinicians and may support improved communication in the ICU. Future efficacy testing is threatened by enrollment challenges for severely injured older adults and their family members. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level III.

Using Implementation Science to Adapt a Training Program to Assist Surgeons with High-Stakes Communication.

OBJECTIVE: Surgeons often conduct difficult conversations with patients near the end of life, yet surgical education provides little formalized communication training. We developed a communication tool, Best Case/Worst Case, and trained surgeons using a one-on-one resource intensive format that was effective but difficult to scale for widespread dissemination. We aimed to generate an implementation package to teach surgeons using fewer resources without sacrificing fidelity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used the Replicating Effectiveness Programs framework to guide our implementation strategy and tested our intervention with 39 surgical residents at 4 institutions from September 2016 to June 2017. The implementation package consisted of: (1) instructional video, (2) checklist to assess competence, (3) learner manual, and (4) instructor manual. We focused on 3 implementation outcomes: feasibility, fidelity, and acceptability to participants. RESULTS: Attendance rates ranged from 16% to 75%. Site leaders had little difficulty identifying suitable instructors; however, resident recruitment proved challenging. Sixty-nine percent of residents completed the post-training assessment and the mean score was 12.8 (range 8-15) using the 15-point checklist. Across sites, 69% strongly agreed that Best Case/Worst Case is better than how they usually approach high-stakes conversations and 100% felt prepared to use the tool after training. Instructors reported that the training provided residents with the necessary skills to perform the fundamental elements of Best Case/Worst Case. CONCLUSIONS: Using implementation science we demonstrated that a resource intensive communication training intervention can be successfully modified for group-learning and wide-scale dissemination. However, we identified barriers to implementation, including challenges with feasibility and programmatic buy-in that inform not only resident education but also communication skills training more broadly.

Initial construct validity evidence of a virtual human application for competency assessment in breaking bad news to a cancer patient.

BACKGROUND: Despite interest in using virtual humans (VHs) for assessing health care communication, evidence of validity is limited. We evaluated the validity of a VH application, MPathic-VR, for assessing performance-based competence in breaking bad news (BBN) to a VH patient. METHODS: We used a two-group quasi-experimental design, with residents participating in a 3-hour seminar on BBN. Group A (n=15) completed the VH simulation before and after the seminar, and Group B (n=12) completed the VH simulation only after the BBN seminar to avoid the possibility that testing alone affected performance. Pre- and postseminar differences for Group A were analyzed with a paired t-test, and comparisons between Groups A and B were analyzed with an independent t-test. RESULTS: Compared to the preseminar result, Group A's postseminar scores improved significantly, indicating that the VH program was sensitive to differences in assessing performance-based competence in BBN. Postseminar scores of Group A and Group B were not significantly different, indicating that both groups performed similarly on the VH program. CONCLUSION: Improved pre-post scores demonstrate acquisition of skills in BBN to a VH patient. Pretest sensitization did not appear to influence posttest assessment. These results provide initial construct validity evidence that the VH program is effective for assessing BBN performance-based communication competence.

Resident training in a teaching hospital: How do attendings teach in the real operative environment?

BACKGROUND: The study aim was to explore the nature of intraoperative education and its interaction with the environment where surgical education occurs. METHODS: Video and audio recording captured teaching interactions between colorectal surgeons and general surgery residents during laparoscopic segmental colectomies. Cases and collected data were analyzed for teaching behaviors and workflow disruptions. Flow disruptions (FDs) are considered deviations from natural case progression. RESULTS: Across 10 cases (20.4 operative hours), attendings spent 11.2 hours (54.7%) teaching, using directing (M = 250.1), and confirming (M = 236.1) most. FDs occurred 410 times, accounting for 4.4 hours of case time (21.57%). Teaching occurred with FD events for 2.4 hours (22.2%), whereas 77.8% of teaching happened outside FD occurrence. Teaching methods shifted from active to passive during FD events to compensate for patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how FDs impact operative learning will inform faculty development in managing interruptions and improve its integration into resident education.

A Framework to Improve Surgeon Communication in High-Stakes Surgical Decisions: Best Case/Worst Case.

Importance: Although many older adults prefer to avoid burdensome interventions with limited ability to preserve their functional status, aggressive treatments, including surgery, are common near the end of life. Shared decision making is critical to achieve value-concordant treatment decisions and minimize unwanted care. However, communication in the acute inpatient setting is challenging. Objective: To evaluate the proof of concept of an intervention to teach surgeons to use the Best Case/Worst Case framework as a strategy to change surgeon communication and promote shared decision making during high-stakes surgical decisions. Design, Setting, and Participants: Our prospective pre-post study was conducted from June 2014 to August 2015, and data were analyzed using a mixed methods approach. The data were drawn from decision-making conversations between 32 older inpatients with an acute nonemergent surgical problem, 30 family members, and 25 surgeons at 1 tertiary care hospital in Madison, Wisconsin. Interventions: A 2-hour training session to teach each study-enrolled surgeon to use the Best Case/Worst Case communication framework. Main Outcomes and Measures: We scored conversation transcripts using OPTION 5, an observer measure of shared decision making, and used qualitative content analysis to characterize patterns in conversation structure, description of outcomes, and deliberation over treatment alternatives. Results: The study participants were patients aged 68 to 95 years (n = 32), 44% of whom had 5 or more comorbid conditions; family members of patients (n = 30); and surgeons (n = 17). The median OPTION 5 score improved from 41 preintervention (interquartile range, 26-66) to 74 after Best Case/Worst Case training (interquartile range, 60-81). Before training, surgeons described the patient's problem in conjunction with an operative solution, directed deliberation over options, listed discrete procedural risks, and did not integrate preferences into a treatment recommendation. After training, surgeons using Best Case/Worst Case clearly presented a choice between treatments, described a range of postoperative trajectories including functional decline, and involved patients and families in deliberation. Conclusions and Relevance: Using the Best Case/Worst Case framework changed surgeon communication by shifting the focus of decision-making conversations from an isolated surgical problem to a discussion about treatment alternatives and outcomes. This intervention can help surgeons structure challenging conversations to promote shared decision making in the acute setting.

"Best Case/Worst Case": Training Surgeons to Use a Novel Communication Tool for High-Risk Acute Surgical Problems.

CONTEXT: Older adults often have surgery in the months preceding death, which can initiate postoperative treatments inconsistent with end-of-life values. "Best Case/Worst Case" (BC/WC) is a communication tool designed to promote goal-concordant care during discussions about high-risk surgery. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate a structured training program designed to teach surgeons how to use BC/WC. METHODS: Twenty-five surgeons from one tertiary care hospital completed a two-hour training session followed by individual coaching. We audio-recorded surgeons using BC/WC with standardized patients and 20 hospitalized patients. Hospitalized patients and their families participated in an open-ended interview 30 to 120 days after enrollment. We used a checklist of 11 BC/WC elements to measure tool fidelity and surgeons completed the Practitioner Opinion Survey to measure acceptability of the tool. We used qualitative analysis to evaluate variability in tool content and to characterize patient and family perceptions of the tool. RESULTS: Surgeons completed a median of 10 of 11 BC/WC elements with both standardized and hospitalized patients (range 5-11). We found moderate variability in presentation of treatment options and description of outcomes. Three months after training, 79% of surgeons reported BC/WC is better than their usual approach and 71% endorsed active use of BC/WC in clinical practice. Patients and families found that BC/WC established expectations, provided clarity, and facilitated deliberation. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons can learn to use BC/WC with older patients considering acute high-risk surgical interventions. Surgeons, patients, and family members endorse BC/WC as a strategy to support complex decision making.

Integrating Postoperative Feedback Into Workflow: Perceived Practices and Barriers.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have found that both resident and staff surgeons highly value postoperative feedback; and that such feedback has high educational value. However, little is known about how to consistently deliver this feedback. Our aim was to understand how often surgical residents should receive feedback and what barriers are preventing this from occurring. DESIGN: Surveys were distributed to resident and attending surgeons. Questions focused on the current frequency of postoperative feedback, desired frequency and methods of feedback, and perceived barriers. Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, and text responses were examined using coding. SETTING: University-based general surgery department at a Midwestern institution. PARTICIPANTS: General surgery residents (n = 23) and attending surgeons (n = 22) participated in this study. RESULTS: Residents reported receiving and staff reported giving feedback for procedure-specific performance after 25% versus 34% of cases, general technical feedback after 36% versus 32%, and nontechnical performance after 17% versus 18%. Both perceived procedure-specific and general technical feedback should be given more than 80% of the time, and nontechnical feedback should happen for nearly 60% of cases. Verbal feedback immediately after the operation was rated as best practice. Both parties identified time, conflicting responsibilities, lack of privacy, and discomfort with giving and receiving meaningful feedback as barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Both resident and staff surgeons agree that postoperative feedback is given far less often than it should. Future work should study intraoperative and postoperative feedback to validate resident and attending surgeons' perceptions such that interventions to improve and facilitate this process can be developed.