The effect of a relationship-centered communication program on patient experience and provider wellness.

OBJECTIVES: Despite evidence of the central importance of communication to patient experience, health outcomes, and provider wellness, communication training for clinicians is not a standard part of clinical education. The study explores the impact of an 8-hour relationship-centered communication (RCC) training program on patient experience and provider wellness. METHODS: 636 healthcare providers participated in 48 workshops conducted January-August 2018. 481 (76%) agreed to participate in research. Participants completed a pre/post assessment that included a wellness survey, the Professional Fulfillment Index (PFI). We conducted chi-squared analyses comparing wellness data immediately prior to the course to 3 months following course participation. Patient experience, assessed using Press Ganey likelihood to recommend care provider (PG-LTR CP) scores, were examined prior to an individual's course participation and following participation up to September 2019. RESULTS: 104 participants completed the three-month PFI (22% response rate). Participants demonstrated marked improvements in professional wellness after 3 months. In bivariate analyses, PG-LTR CP significantly increased and persisted more than 7 months following program completion. CONCLUSIONS: The RCC training program, a low-cost communication intervention, led to significant, beneficial changes in provider wellness and patient experience. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Implementing a RCC course for providers may improve patient experience and provider wellness.

Effects of surgeon sociodemographics on patient-reported satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported satisfaction scores, including the Press Ganey surveys, are increasingly used as measures for quality healthcare among surgical subspecialties. However, the influence of surgeon sociodemographics is not clear. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed Press Ganey surveys linked to outpatient surgical visits at a single academic institution from January 2015 to December 2018 as they related to surgeon age, gender, and race. The primary outcome variable was achievement of a top-box score (5/5) on likelihood to recommend surgeon queries. Secondary analysis examined the relationship of likelihood to recommend surgeon to other survey questions, such as those regarding surgeon courtesy, concern, understandability, patient inclusion in medical decision making, and patient confidence in surgeon. χ2 tests and generalized estimating equation regression models were run to assess correlation. RESULTS: In bivariate analysis of 36,840 surveys, non-Hispanic white surgeons were more likely to receive likelihood to recommend surgeon top-box ratings than Asian (P < .001) or underrepresented minority surgeons (P < .001). Additionally, male gender (P < .01) and older surgeon age (P < .001) were associated with higher top-box scores. However, in multivariate generalized estimating equation analysis, the effect of age was no longer significant, but female gender continued to be associated with lower odds of top-box likelihood to recommend surgeon ratings (odds ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.70%-0.99%), as did Asian compared with white race (odds ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.65%-0.95%). Likelihood to recommend surgeon scores correlated most closely with patients' "confidence" in the surgeon rather than measures of courtesy, concern, understandability, or inclusion in medical decision making. CONCLUSION: Top-box scores varied by surgeon race and gender in correlation with patients' perceived confidence in the provider. Interpretation of Press Ganey scores should account for potential bias in patient satisfaction surveys based on surgeon demographics.

Rank Equity Index: Measuring Parity in the Advancement of Underrepresented Populations in Academic Medicine.

As educators, researchers, clinicians, and administrators, faculty serve pivotal roles in academic medical centers (AMCs). Thus, the quality of faculty members' experiences is inseparable from an AMC's success. In seeking new methods to assess equity in advancement in academic medicine, the authors developed the Rank Equity Index (REI)-adapted from the Executive Parity Index, a scale previously implemented within the business sector-to examine national data on gender and racial/ethnic equity across faculty ranks. The REI was employed on self-reported demographic data, collected by the Association of American Medical Colleges, from U.S. medical school faculty in 2017, to make pairwise rank comparisons of the professoriate by demographic characteristics and department. Overall results indicated that women did not attain parity at any pairwise rank comparison, while men were above parity at all ranks. Similar results were observed across all departments surveyed: women in the basic sciences had REIs closest to parity, women in pediatrics had the highest representation but had REIs that were further from parity than REIs in the basic sciences, and women in surgery demonstrated the lowest REIs. Nationally, REIs were below 1.00 for all racial/ethnic group rank comparisons except for White and, in one case, multiple-race non-Hispanic/Latinx. Across all analyzed departments, Black/African American, Asian, Hispanic/Latinx, and multiple-race Hispanic/Latinx faculty had REIs below parity at all ranks except in 2 cases. In a comparison of 2017 and 2007 data, REIs across both race/ethnicity and gender were lower in 2007 for nearly all groups. REI analyses can highlight inequities in faculty rank that may be masked when using aggregate faculty proportions, which do not account for rank. The REI provides AMCs with a new tool to better analyze institutional data to inform efforts to increase parity across all faculty ranks.