Screening Second Victims for Emotional Distress: Assessment of the Clinimetric Properties of the WITHSTAND-PSY Questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION: Adverse events (AEs) are a leading cause of patient morbidity and mortality, greatly impacting healthcare providers' well-being (second victim (SV) phenomenon). Since it is not accurately captured by existing psychometric instruments, we developed a clinimetric instrument for assessing SVs' emotional distress before and after an AE. METHODS: Content validity and clinical utility of the WITHSTAND-PSY Questionnaire (WS-PSY-Q) were examined using cognitive interviews. Rasch analysis (n = 284) was applied for clinimetric assessment (i.e., construct, concurrent, and clinical validity, internal consistency), considering two crucial psychological facets of the SV phenomenon (1st: emotional impact of the AE, 2nd: current emotional state). RESULTS: The Rasch partial credit model was used. The 1st facet demonstrated overall acceptable clinimetric properties with the subscale anxiety meeting clinimetric threshold values (e.g., all items with ordered thresholds, Loevinger's coefficient h ≥ 0.40; Person Separation Reliability Index (PSI) = 0.7). The 2nd facet showed overall better clinimetric properties for both subscales (e.g., h ≥ 0.40, PSI = 0.82 and 0.79, respectively; receiver operating characteristic area of 0.80 and 0.86, respectively). For both datasets, item fit statistics, except those for item 19, were within the critical range (z-score < ±2.5), and meaningful differential functioning analysis was observed for only 4 (out of 24) items. Local dependency was not observed, except for two item couples in the depression subscales. CONCLUSIONS: The WS-PSY-Q is the first clinimetric tool assessing SVs' emotional distress. It should be regarded as part of the armamentarium used by clinicians to assess in-depth healthcare providers' psychological reactions in the aftermath of an AE to mitigate burnout and allostatic overload.

You only have one chance for a first impression! Impact of Patients' First Impression on the Global Quality Assessment of Doctors' Communication Approach.

Patients' first impressions obtained during early contacts with doctors represent the basis for relationship building processes. Aim of this study was to verify how patients' first impression of doctors' communication approach influences patients' global assessment of doctors' performance. This cross-sectional study was part of a larger, multicenter observational study aiming to assess lay-people's preferences regarding patient-doctor communication. All participants (N = 136) were equally distributed over two selected Italian and Dutch recruitment centers as well as for gender and age. In each center, panels of 6-9 persons each watched the same set of eight videotaped Objective Structured Clinical Examination consultations. Participants performed different tasks as to pick up salient communication elements while watching the videos and to rate doctors' global communicative performances on a 10-point Likert scale. We performed a mediation analysis to assess direct and indirect effects of participants' first impression on participants' global assessment. Among the 439 collected first impressions, 284(65%) were positive. When the first impression was positive, the mean value of the global assessment of doctors' performance was significantly higher (M = 7.4, SD = 1.5) than when the first impression was negative (M = 6.0, SD = 1.6); t(437) = 9.0 p < .001. According to the mediation analysis, this difference was due to a direct (c' = 0.53) and an indirect effect (ab = 0.86) deriving from the total effect of first impressions on the global assessment of doctors' performances (c = 1.39). In conclusion, the first impression has a strong impact on positive and negative judgments on doctors' communication approach and may facilitate or inhibit all further interactions.