RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Race dialogues, conversations about race and racism among individuals holding different racial identities, have been proposed as one component of addressing racism in medicine and improving the experience of racially minoritized patients. Drawing on work from several fields, we aimed to assess the scope of the literature on race dialogues and to describe potential benefits, best practices, and challenges of conducting such dialogues. Ultimately, our goal was to explore the potential role of race dialogues in medical education and clinical practice. METHODS: Our scoping review included articles published prior to June 2, 2022, in the biomedicine, psychology, nursing and allied health, and education literatures. Ultimately, 54 articles were included in analysis, all of which pertained to conversations about race occurring between adults possessing different racial identities. We engaged in an interactive group process to identify key takeaways from each article and synthesize cross-cutting themes. RESULTS: Emergent themes reflected the processes of preparing, leading, and following up race dialogues. Preparing required significant personal introspection, logistical organization, and intentional framing of the conversation. Leading safe and successful race dialogues necessitated trauma-informed practices, addressing microaggressions as they arose, welcoming participation and emotions, and centering the experience of individuals with minoritized identities. Longitudinal experiences and efforts to evaluate the quality of race dialogues were crucial to ensuring meaningful impact. DISCUSSION: Supporting race dialogues within medicine has the potential to promote a more inclusive and justice-oriented workforce, strengthen relationships amongst colleagues, and improve care for patients with racially minoritized identities. Potential levers for supporting race dialogues include high-quality racial justice curricula at every level of medical education and valuation of racial consciousness in admissions and hiring processes. All efforts to support race dialogues must center and uplift those with racially minoritized identities.
RESUMO
Protection of the public is the paramount aim for health practitioner regulation, yet there has been growing concern globally on the association between regulatory complaints processes and practitioner mental health and wellbeing. The objective was to understand the experience, particularly distress, of health practitioners involved in a regulatory complaints process to identify potential strategies to minimise future risk of distress. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with health practitioners in Australia who had recently been through a regulatory complaints process, together with a retrospective analysis of documentation relating to all identified cases of self-harm or suicide of health practitioners who were involved in such a process over 4 years. Data from interviews and the serious incident analysis found there were elements of the regulatory complaints process contributing to practitioner distress. These included poor communication, extended time to close the investigation, and the management of health-related concerns. The study found external personal circumstances and pre-existing conditions could put the practitioner at greater risk of distress. There were found to be key moments in the process-triggers-where the practitioner was at particular risk of severe distress. Strong support networks, both personal and professional, were found to be protective against distress. Through process improvements and, where appropriate, additional support for practitioners, we hope to further minimise the risk of practitioner distress and harm when involved in a regulatory complaints process. The findings also point to the need for improved partnerships between regulators and key stakeholders, such as legal defence organisations, indemnity providers, employers, and those with lived experience of complaints processes. Together they can improve the support for practitioners facing a complaint and address the stigma, shame, and fear associated with regulatory complaints processes. This project provides further evidence that a more compassionate approach to regulation has the potential to be better for all parties and, ultimately, the wider healthcare system.