Making Meaning Matter: an Editor's Perspective on Publishing Qualitative Research.

The term qualitative research refers to a family of primarily non-numeric methods for describing, analyzing, and interpreting the lived experiences of people in their day to day lives. Originally developed to study social problems such as poverty, juvenile delinquency, and race relations, qualitative research methods have been used in the health sciences since the 1960s to better understand the socialization of medical professionals and the culture of medical education and practice. More recently, qualitative research has been employed in health services research to address and improve the quality and safety of care. While quantitative researchers generally ask "what" or "how many" questions, qualitative researchers generally ask, "why" or "how"? Publishing qualitative research comes with a number of challenges, among them, manuscript length, unfamiliarity of reviewers with qualitative traditions, and sample sizes that, by design, are difficult to generalize from. In addition, while there is general agreement about the quality of evidence and types of research designs used in quantitative studies, the same is not yet the case for qualitative and mixed methods research although a variety of useful guidelines have recently appeared. From the perspective of journal editors, we raise and offer guidance on three important questions: (1) Is the study under review suitable for this journal? (2) What is the rationale for using qualitative methods to carry out the research? (3) What are editors/reviewers looking for in a qualitative submission? In unpacking the third question, we describe common strategies editors use and challenges that we have encountered in the abstract, background, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions sections of qualitative submissions we and our colleagues have reviewed.

Reducing decisional conflict in decisions about prenatal genetic testing: the impact of a dyadic intervention at the start of prenatal care.

OBJECTIVES: Decisional conflict and regret about prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic tests may have important consequences in the current pregnancy and for future reproductive decisions. Identifying mechanisms that reduce conflict associated with the decision to use or decline these options is necessary for optimal patient counseling. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a shared decision-making tool (NEST) at the beginning of prenatal care. Enrolled patients completed follow-up surveys at the time of testing (QTT) and in the second-third trimester (QFF), including the Decision Conflict Scale (DCS). Total DCS scores were analyzed using a multivariate linear mixed-effect model. RESULTS: Of the total number of participants (n=502) enrolled, 449 completed the QTT and QFF surveys. The mean age of participants was 31.6±3.8, with most parous at the time of study participation (n=321; 71.7 %). Both the NEST (the intervention) and control groups had lower median total DCS scores at QFF (NEST 13.3 [1.7, 25.0] vs. control 16.7 [1.7, 25.0]; p=0.24) compared to QTT (NEST 20.8 [5.0, 25.0] vs. control 18.3 [3.3, 26.7]; p=0.89). Participants exposed to NEST had lower decisional conflict at QFF compared to control (ß -3.889; [CI -7.341, -0.437]; p=0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Using a shared decision-making tool at the start of prenatal care decreased decisional conflict regarding prenatal genetic testing. Such interventions have the potential to provide an important form of decision-making support for patients facing the unique type of complex and preference-based choices about the use of prenatal genetic tests.

Learning from women veterans who navigate invisible injuries, caregiving, and reintegration challenges.

BACKGROUND: As women comprise a greater proportion of military service members, there is growing recognition of how their experiences in the early phase of military to civilian transitions have an important influence on their health and reintegration outcomes. Qualitative accounts of women veterans can inform programs that support transitioning service members. OBJECTIVES: We examined narratives of civilian reintegration among women veterans to understand their experiences of adjusting to community life while coping with mental health challenges. METHODS/PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 16 post-911 era women who were within 5 years of separating from military service and developed a case study based on three participants. MAIN APPROACH: Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted to establish categories about reintegration. Immersion/crystallization techniques were used to identify exemplary cases that illustrated salient themes. KEY RESULTS: Women veterans identified establishing a future career direction, drawing on social support, and navigating health care services as major factors influencing how they adjusted to civilian life. In addition, participants also highlighted the navigation of complex and intersecting identities (i.e., wife, mother, employee, friend, veteran, patient, etc.), further magnified by gender inequalities. These women performed emotional labor, which is often rendered invisible and oriented toward their family and loved ones, while simultaneously monitoring self-care activities. During the early period of reintegration, they described how they felt marginalized in terms of accessing healthcare compared to their military spouses and male veteran peers. CONCLUSIONS: Our case study suggests that there are key gaps in addressing healthcare and readjustment needs for women servicemembers, a high priority VA group, as they transition into post-military life. It is important to consider innovative ways to address specific needs of women in veteran-focused policies and programs.

ASPIRE: A Program for Developing Clinician Educators' Scholarship, Advancement, and Sense of Community.

INTRODUCTION: Faculty development programs encouraging clinician educators' scholarship have been established at many medical schools. The same is true for programs that address the isolation and loneliness many faculty members feel in their day-to-day clinical work and administration. Few programs have explicitly combined development of scholarship and sense of community. AIM: The goals of the Advanced Scholars Program for Internists in Research and Education (ASPIRE) are as follows: (1) provide training in scholarship development including research methods, implementation, and dissemination; (2) provide expert mentoring and support for professional development; and (3) create a greater sense of campus community. SETTING: ASPIRE scholars are clinician educators in the Department of Medicine at Indiana University School of Medicine. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The program runs 18 months, includes intensive mentoring, covered time for scholars and mentors, resources, and two half-day educational sessions per month focused on scholarship and community development. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Institutional leaders' public statements and actions regarding ASPIRE were documented by program leadership. Data collected from ASPIRE mentors and scholars through interviews and free text survey responses were analyzed using an immersion/crystallization approach. Two central themes were identified for both scholars and mentors: benefits and challenges of the program. Benefits included mentors, program design, community development, increased confidence, skills development, improved patient care, and institutional impact. Challenges included time to accomplish the program, balance of community-building and skills development, and lack of a clear path post-ASPIRE. DISCUSSION: Combining skills-based learning with safe psychological space were judged important elements of success for the ASPIRE program. Conversations are ongoing to identify opportunities for scholars who have completed the program to continue to pursue scholarship, expand their skills, and build community. We conclude that the program both is feasible and was well-received. Sustainability and generalizability are important next steps in ensuring the viability of the program.

"If your feelings were hurt, I'm sorry ": How Third-Year Medical Students Observe, Learn From, and Engage in Apologies.

BACKGROUND: Apologies may play a significant role in medical care, especially in the context of patient safety, medical error disclosure, and malpractice. Studies have shown that when state laws, institutional policies, and individual skills align-including the ability to offer a sincere apology-patients and families benefit. However, little is known about how, and under what conditions, physicians offer apologies in day-to-day care. Even less is known about what medical students learn about apologies from observing their superiors in these settings. OBJECTIVE: Characterize third-year medical students' experiences of observing and engaging in apologies. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive analysis of student professionalism narratives. PARTICIPANTS: Third-year medical students at Indiana University School of Medicine. APPROACH: A search of 7,384 unique narratives yielded 238 with apologies. A rubric based on four key elements of genuine apologies ((1) acknowledgement, (2) explanation, (3) regret/remorse, and (4) reparation) was used to classify the kind of apology offered. Apology completeness, impact, and timing were also coded. KEY RESULTS: Seventeen percent of all apologies were complete (i.e., contained all four elements). Over 40% were coded as incomplete or "non-apology" apologies (i.e., those with only the first two elements). A significant relationship between apology completeness and positive student experience was found. Most apologies were offered by the attending physician or resident to patients and family members. Students were generally positive about their experiences, but one in five were coded as negative. Some students were distressed enough to offer apologies on behalf of the faculty. Apology timing did not make a significant difference in terms of student experience. CONCLUSIONS: Few education programs target apologies in the context of routine practice. With little formal instruction, students may rely on adopting what their seniors do. Faculty have an important role to play in modeling the apology process when harms-both great and small-occur.

Blame and its consequences for healthcare professionals: response to Tigard.

Tigard (2019) suggests that the medical community would benefit from continuing to promote notions of individual responsibility and blame in healthcare settings. In particular, he contends that blame will promote systematic improvement, both on the individual and institutional levels, by increasing the likelihood that the blameworthy party will 'own up' to his or her mistake and apologise. While we agree that communicating regret and offering a genuine apology are critical steps to take when addressing patient harm, the idea that medical professionals should continue to 'take the blame' for medical errors flies in the face of existing science and threatens to do more harm than good. We contrast Dr Tigard's approach with the current literature on blame to promote an alternative strategy that may help to create lasting change in the face of unfortunate error.

"Do You Know What I Know?": How Communication Norms and Recipient Design Shape the Content and Effectiveness of Patient Handoffs.

BACKGROUND: Poor communication during end-of-shift transfers of care (handoffs) is associated with safety risks and patient harm. Despite the common perception that handoffs are largely a one-way transfer of information, researchers have documented that they are complex interactions, guided by implicit social norms and mental frameworks. OBJECTIVES: We investigated communication strategies that resident physicians report deploying to tailor information during face-to-face handoffs that are often based on their implicit inferences about the perceived information needs and potential harm to patients. METHODS/PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 35 residents in Medicine and Surgery wards at three VA Medical Centers (VAMCs). MAIN MEASURES: We conducted qualitative interviews using audio-recorded semi-structured cognitive task interviews. KEY RESULTS: The effectiveness of handoff communication depends upon three factors: receiver characteristics, type of shift, and patient's condition and perceived acuity. Receiver characteristics, including subjective perceptions about an incoming resident's training or ability levels and their assumed preferences for information (e.g., detailed/comprehensive vs. minimal/"big picture"), influenced content shared during handoffs. Residents handing off to the night team provided more information about patients' medical histories and care plans than residents handing off to the day team, and higher patient acuity merited more detailed information and the medical service(s) involved dictated the types of information conveyed. CONCLUSIONS: We found that handoff communication involves a complex combination of socio-technical information where residents balance relational factors against content and risk. It is not a mechanistic process of merely transferring clinical data but rather is based on learned habits of communication that are context-sensitive and variable, what we refer to as "recipient design." Interventions should focus on raising awareness of times when information is omitted, customized, or expanded based on implicit judgments, the emerging threats such judgments pose to patient care and quality, and the competencies needed to be more explicit in handoff interactions.

Reflecting on shared decision making: A reflection-quantification study.

BACKGROUND: Reflecting ("stop-and-think") before rating may help patients consider the quality of shared decision making (SDM) and mitigate ceiling/halo effects that limit the performance of self-reported SDM measures. METHODS: We asked a diverse patient sample from the United States to reflect on their care before completing the 3-item CollaboRATE SDM measure. Study 1 focused on rephrasing CollaboRATE items to promote reflection before each item. Study 2 used 5 open-ended questions (about what went well and what could be improved upon, signs that the clinician understood the patient's situation, how the situation will be addressed, and why this treatment plan makes sense) to invite reflection before using the whole scale. A linear analogue scale assessed the extent to which the plan of care made sense to the patient. RESULTS: In Study 1, 107 participants completed surveys (84% response rate), 43 (40%) rated a clinical decision of which 27 (63%) after responding to reflection questions. Adding reflection lowered CollaboRATE scores ("less" SDM) and reduced the proportion of patients giving maximum (ceiling) scores (not statistically significant). In Study 2, 103 of 212 responders (49%) fully completed the version containing reflection questions. Reflection did not significantly change the distribution of CollaboRATE scores or of top scores. Participants indicated high scores on the sense of their care plan (mean 9.7 out of 10, SD 0.79). This rating was weakly correlated with total CollaboRATE scores (rho = .4, P = .0001). CONCLUSION: Reflection-before-quantification interventions may not improve the performance of patient-reported measures of SDM with substantial ceiling/halo effects.

Healthcare at the Crossroads: The Need to Shape an Organizational Culture of Humanistic Teaching and Practice.

BACKGROUND: Changes in the organization of medical practice have impeded humanistic practice and resulted in widespread physician burnout and dissatisfaction. OBJECTIVE: To identify organizational factors that promote or inhibit humanistic practice of medicine by faculty physicians. DESIGN: From January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2016, faculty from eight US medical schools were asked to write reflectively on two open-ended questions regarding institutional-level motivators and impediments to humanistic practice and teaching within their organizations. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty eight of the 92 (74%) study participants who received the survey provided written responses. All subjects who were sent the survey had participated in a year-long small-group faculty development program to enhance humanistic practice and teaching. As humanistic leaders, subjects should have insights into motivating and inhibiting factors. APPROACH: Participants' responses were analyzed using the constant comparative method. KEY RESULTS: Motivators included an organizational culture that enhances humanism, which we judged to be the overarching theme. Related themes included leadership supportive of humanistic practice, responsibility to role model humanism, organized activities that promote humanism, and practice structures that facilitate humanism. Impediments included top down organizational culture that inhibits humanism, along with related themes of non-supportive leadership, time and bureaucratic pressures, and non-facilitative practice structures. CONCLUSIONS: While healthcare has evolved rapidly, efforts to counteract the negative effects of changes in organizational and practice environments have largely focused on cultivating humanistic attributes in individuals. Our findings suggest that change at the organizational level is at least equally important. Physicians in our study described the characteristics of an organizational culture that supports and embraces humanism. We offer suggestions for organizational change that keep humanistic and compassionate patient care as its central focus.

"Workin' on Our Night Moves": How Residents Prepare for Shift Handoffs.

BACKGROUND: Poor-quality handoffs have been associated with serious patient consequences. Researchers and educators have answered the call with efforts to increase system safety and resilience by supporting handoffs using increased communication standardization. The focus on strategies for formalizing the content and delivery of patient handoffs has considerable intuitive appeal; however, broader conceptual framing is required to both improve the process and develop and implement effective measures of handoff quality. METHODS: Cognitive task interviews were conducted with internal medicine and surgery residents at three geographically diverse US Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers. Thirty-five residents participated in semistructured interviews using a recent handoff as a prompt for in-depth discussion of goals, strategies, and information needs. Transcribed interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Six cognitive tasks emerged during handoff preparation: (1) communicating status and care plan for each patient; (2) specifying tasks for the incoming night shift; (3) anticipating questions and problems likely to arise during the night shift; (4) streamlining patient care task load for the incoming resident; (5) prioritizing problems by acuity across the patient census, and (6) ensuring accurate and current documentation. CONCLUSION: Our study advances the understanding of the influence of the cognitive tasks residents engage in as they prepare to hand off patients from day shift to night shift. Cognitive preparation for the handoff includes activities critical to effective coordination yet easily overlooked because they are not readily observable. The cognitive activities identified point to strategies for cognitive support via improved technology, organizational interventions, and enhanced training.

Content counts, but context makes the difference in developing expertise: a qualitative study of how residents learn end of shift handoffs.

BACKGROUND: Handoff education is both formal and informal and varies widely across medical school and residency training programs. Despite many efforts to improve clinical handoffs, little evidence has shown meaningful improvement. The objective of this study was to identify residents' perspectives and develop a deeper understanding on the necessary training to conduct safe and effective patient handoffs. METHODS: A qualitative study focused on the analysis of cognitive task interviews targeting end-of-shift handoff experiences with 35 residents from three geographically dispersed VA facilities. The interview data were analyzed using an iterative, consensus-based team approach. Researchers discussed and agreed on code definitions and corresponding case examples. Grounded theory was used to analyze the transcripts. RESULTS: Although some residents report receiving formal training in conducting handoffs (e.g., medical school coursework, resident boot camp/workshops, and handoff debriefing), many residents reported that they were only partially prepared for enacting them as interns. Experiential, practice-based learning (i.e., giving handoffs, covering night shift to match common issues to handoff content) was identified as the most suited and beneficial for delivering effective handoff training. Six skills were described as critical to learning effective handoffs: identifying pertinent information, providing anticipatory guidance, applying acquired clinical knowledge, being concise, incorporating delivery strategies, and appreciating the styles/preferences of handoff recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Residents identified the immersive performance and the experience of covering night shifts as the most important aspects of learning to execute effective handoffs. Formal education alone can miss the critical role of real-time sense-making throughout the process of handing off from one trainee to another. Interventions targeting senior resident mentoring and night shift could positively influence the cognitive and performance capacity for safe, effective handoffs.

Crossing the Communication Chasm: Challenges and Opportunities in Transitions of Care from the Hospital to the Primary Care Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Transitions of care from specialty and acute settings to primary care abound. Compared to the continuity in end-of-shift handoffs, care transitions involve provider communication between practices and facilities with their own cultures and bureaucracies. Using the transition from acute care to outpatient primary care for stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) patients as a case study, this qualitative research explored communication practices and institutional arrangements among clinical providers responsible for longitudinal management of hypertension. In this study, researchers investigated the barriers and facilitators of effective communication between acute stroke/TIA inpatient and primary care providers at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team conducted consensus-based coding and thematic analysis of semistructured interviews with 21 clinical providers (9 with primary responsibilities for inpatient care and 12 with primary responsibilities in outpatient, primary care). RESULTS: Thematic analysis of responses identified three factors that influenced communication between clinical providers: (1) consistent, concise but complete medication and treatment plans; (2) reliable, standardized discharge documentation; (3) use of multiple modes of communication. Participants identified cultural barriers, including challenges with rotating providers at a teaching hospital and local discharge practices. CONCLUSION: Ambiguity about who is being handed off to and time pressures in the acute setting may lead inpatient providers to give lower priority to discharge communication, leaving outpatient providers with low-quality information. While electronic templates have standardized key components of discharge documentation, improvement opportunities remain. Increased awareness of the challenges and opportunities on each side of the care transfer could foster communication practices that systematically account for the information needs of inpatient and outpatient providers.

Communication Skills Training for Physicians Improves Patient Satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Skilled physician communication is a key component of patient experience. Large-scale studies of exposure to communication skills training and its impact on patient satisfaction have not been conducted. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the impact of experiential relationship-centered physician communication skills training on patient satisfaction and physician experience. DESIGN: This was an observational study. SETTING: The study was conducted at a large, multispecialty academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 1537 attending physicians who participated in, and 1951 physicians who did not participate in, communication skills training between 1 August 2013 and 30 April 2014. INTERVENTION: An 8-h block of interactive didactics, live or video skill demonstrations, and small group and large group skills practice sessions using a relationship-centered model. MAIN MEASURES: Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS), Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CGCAHPS), Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE), Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), self-efficacy, and post course satisfaction. KEY RESULTS: Following the course, adjusted overall CGCAHPS scores for physician communication were higher for intervention physicians than for controls (92.09 vs. 91.09, p < 0.03). No significant interactions were noted between physician specialty or baseline CGCAHPS and improvement following the course. Significant improvement in the post-course HCAHPS Respect domain adjusted mean was seen in intervention versus control groups (91.08 vs. 88.79, p = 0.02) and smaller, non-statistically significant improvements were also seen for adjusted HCAHPS communication scores (83.95 vs. 82.73, p = 0.22). Physicians reported high course satisfaction and showed significant improvement in empathy (116.4 ± 12.7 vs. 124 ± 11.9, p < 0.001) and burnout, including all measures of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment. Less depersonalization and greater personal accomplishment were sustained for at least 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: System-wide relationship-centered communication skills training improved patient satisfaction scores, improved physician empathy, self-efficacy, and reduced physician burnout. Further research is necessary to examine longer-term sustainability of such interventions.

Pharmaceutical Role Expansion and Developments in Pharmacist-Physician Communication.

Expanded clinical pharmacist professional roles in the team-based patient-centered medical home (PCMH) primary care environment require cooperative and collaborative relationships among pharmacists and primary care physicians (PCPs), but many PCPs have not previously worked in such a direct fashion with pharmacists. Additional roles, including formulary control, add further elements of complexity to the clinical pharmacist-PCP relationship that are not well described. Our objective was to characterize the nature of clinical pharmacist-PCP interprofessional collaboration across seven federally funded hospitals and associated primary care clinics, following pharmacist placement in primary care clinics and incorporation of expanded pharmacist roles. In-depth and semistructured interviews were conducted with 25 practicing clinical pharmacists and 17 PCPs. Qualitative thematic analysis revealed three major themes: (1) the complexities of electronic communication (particularly electronic nonformulary requests) as contributing to interprofessional tensions or misunderstandings for both groups, (2) the navigation of new roles and traditional hierarchy, with pharmacists using indirect communication to prevent PCP defensiveness to recommendations, and (3) a preference for onsite colocation for enhanced communication and professional relationships. Clinical pharmacists' indirect communication practices may hold important implications for patient safety in the context of medication use, and it is important to foster effective communication skills and an environment where all team members across hierarchies can feel comfortable speaking up to reduce error when problems are suspected. Also, the lack of institutional communication about managing drug formulary issues and related electronic nonformulary request processes was apparent in this study and merits further attention for both researchers and practitioners.

Fostering Alignment and the Catalytic Potential of Community-Engaged Research With US Military Veterans and Advocates.

This paper explores the concept of "community-engaged research" (CEnR) within the context of Veteran health care delivery and reintegration programs. A multi-sector expert panel (msExP) was formed to evaluate and make recommendations on Veteran community reintegration research and programs. The panel consisted of Veterans, care partners, clinical providers, researchers, community stakeholders, and subject matter experts. The paper examines the composition and lifecycle of the panel, highlighting the characteristics and experiences of the participants. Shifts in the panel's purpose and engagement levels occurred in response to unanticipated disruptions, particularly the COVID-19 pandemic. The transformation of the panel emphasizes the importance of aligning individual and group needs and deepening intrapersonal relationships Findings based on observations, surveys, and interviews with panel members contribute to the field of community-engaged research by demonstrating the utility of catalytic validity that balances group and individual development. As part of a broader study on Veteran reintegration, the panel and its development over time allowed for various perspectives on Veteran experiences and reintegration within the community that shaped the overall project. Despite the challenges of developing and maintaining a panel alongside a research study, feedback from the panel members on their participation provides insight into the potential for future working alliances in community-engaged health research.

Storylines of family medicine II: foundational building blocks-context, community and health.

Storylines of Family Medicine is a 12-part series of thematically linked mini-essays with accompanying illustrations that explore the many dimensions of family medicine, as interpreted by individual family physicians and medical educators in the USA and elsewhere around the world. In 'II: foundational building blocks-context, community and health', authors address the following themes: 'Context-grounding family medicine in time, place and being', 'Recentring community', 'Community-oriented primary care', 'Embeddedness in practice', 'The meaning of health', 'Disease, illness and sickness-core concepts', 'The biopsychosocial model', 'The biopsychosocial approach' and 'Family medicine as social medicine.' May readers grasp new implications for medical education and practice in these essays.

Transforming primary care training--patient-centered medical home entrustable professional activities for internal medicine residents.

INTRODUCTION: The U.S. faces a critical gap between residency training and clinical practice that affects the recruitment and preparation of internal medicine residents for primary care careers. The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) represents a new clinical microsystem that is being widely promoted and implemented to improve access, quality, and sustainability in primary care practice. AIM: We address two key questions regarding the training of internal medicine residents for practice in PCMHs. First, what are the educational implications of practice transformations to primary care home models? Second, what must we do differently to prepare internal medicine residents for their futures in PCMHs? PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The 2011 Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) PCMH Education Summit established seven work groups to address the following topics: resident workplace competencies, teamwork, continuity of care, assessment, faculty development, 'medical home builder' tools, and policy. The output from the competency work group was foundational for the work of other groups. The work group considered several educational frameworks, including developmental milestones, competencies, and entrustable professional activities (EPAs). RESULTS: The competency work group defined 25 internal medicine resident PCMH EPAs. The 2011 National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) PCMH standards served as an organizing framework for EPAs. DISCUSSION: The list of PCMH EPAs has the potential to begin to transform the education of internal medicine residents for practice and leadership in the PCMH. It will guide curriculum development, learner assessment, and clinical practice redesign for academic health centers.