Communicating the diagnosis of a hematological neoplastic disease to patients' minor children: a multicenter prospective study.

BACKGROUND: When a hematological malignancy is diagnosed, the whole family carries the burden of the disease; parents often try to protect minor children from suffering by avoiding communication about their disease. Since 2009, patients with minors at the Adult Hematology Division at San Gerardo Hospital (Monza) can take part in the "Emanuela Project": children can visit parents and talk with psychologists and hematologists, who explain the disease through simple metaphors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The EMY STUDY aimed to evaluate the impact of illness-related communication on children's behavior, comparing Monza's experience with other Hematology Units, where the communication is delegated to parents or psychological support. Questionnaires exploring the children's main behaviors (school performance, appetite, sleeping patterns, attachment to family figures, and family dialogue) were administered to both sick (SP) and healthy (HP) parents. From 2017 to 2021, 32 patients were enrolled, 20 from Monza and 12 from other hospitals; 84 questionnaires were globally collected. RESULTS: In Monza's group, no major changes in children's behavior were observed and an open dialogue about the disease was often possible. Disease communication is considered crucial and perceived as a responsibility of parents together with a professional figure, mainly the hematologist. Patients were satisfied with "Emanuela Project," reporting positive effects on doctor-patient relationship. Difficulties in separation were significantly higher at other hospitals (P = .019) than in Monza. While at other centers communication is considered parents' responsibility, Monza's patients emphasize the role of professional figures (P = .007). Differently from other hospitals, the role of the hematologist is crucial to Monza's patients (P = .001). CONCLUSION: Disease communication to patients' offspring is a crucial moment in the process of care, and the hematologist can play a major role in this difficult task, with potential positive effects both on children's well-being and on doctor-patient relationship.

Doctor trustworthiness influences pain and its neural correlates in virtual medical interactions.

Trust is an important component of the doctor-patient relationship and is associated with improved patient satisfaction and health outcomes. Previously, we reported that patient feelings of trust and similarity toward their clinician predicted reductions in evoked pain in response to painful heat stimulations. In the present study, we investigated the brain mechanisms underlying this effect. We used face stimuli previously developed using a data-driven computational modeling approach that differ in perceived trustworthiness and superimposed them on bodies dressed in doctors' attire. During functional magnetic resonance imaging, participants (n = 42) underwent a series of virtual medical interactions with these doctors during which they received painful heat stimulation as an analogue of a painful diagnostic procedure. Participants reported increased pain when receiving painful heat stimulations from low-trust doctors, which was accompanied by increased activity in pain-related brain regions and a multivariate pain-predictive neuromarker. Findings suggest that patient trust in their doctor may have tangible impacts on pain and point to a potential brain basis for trust-related reductions in pain through the modulation of brain circuitry associated with the sensory-discriminative and affective-motivational dimensions of pain.

Shared decision-making with older people on TReatment Escalation planning for Acute deterioration in the emergency Medical Setting: a qualitative study of Clinicians' perspectives (STREAMS-C).

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) is increasingly expected in healthcare systems prioritising patient autonomy. Treatment escalation plans (TEPs) outline contingency for medical intervention in the event of patient deterioration. This study aimed to understand clinicians' perspectives on SDM in TEP for older patients in the acute medical setting. METHODS: This was a qualitative study following a constructivist approach. Semistructured interviews with vignettes were conducted with 26 consultant and registrar doctors working in emergency medicine, general internal medicine, intensive care medicine and palliative care medicine. Reflexive thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: There were three themes: 'An unequal partnership', 'Options without equipoise' and 'Decisions with shared understanding'. Clinicians' expertise in synthesising complex, uncertain clinical information was contrasted with perceived patient unfamiliarity with future health planning and medical intervention. There was a strong sense of morality underpinning decision-making and little equipoise about appropriate TEP decisions. Communication around the TEP was important, and clinicians sought control over the high-stakes decision whilst avoiding conflict and achieving shared understanding. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians take responsibility for securing a 'good' TEP decision for older patients in the acute medical setting. They synthesise clinical data with implicit ethical reasoning according to their professional predictions of qualitative and quantitative success following medical intervention. SDM is seldom considered a priority for this context. Nonetheless, avoidance of conflict, preserving the clinical relationship and shared understanding with the patient and family are important.

Establishing trust with children.

Trust forms the bedrock of the doctor-patient relationship. While establishing trust is a foundational skill for healthcare providers who care for children, there is no systematic approach to teaching this skill set, nor is there formal training during medical school or residency. Traditionally, these skills have been taught by example, in an unstructured and ad hoc manner, with trainees picking it up along the way by observing and modeling their instructors. Here, we define and examine the elements of establishing trust and describe a methodology for establishing trust and managing a child's emotional state during medical encounters.

Measuring continuity in primary care: how it is done and why it matters.

Continuity of care (COC) is a foundational element of primary care and is associated with improved patient satisfaction and health outcomes and decreased total cost of care. The patient-physician relationship is highly valued by both parties and is often the reason providers choose to specialize in primary care. In some settings, such as outpatient residency clinics, however, patients may only see their primary care provider (PCP) 50% or less of the time. Considering the many benefits of COC for patients and providers, there is a clear need for us in primary care to understand how to compare different COC measures across studies and how to choose the best COC measure when conducting quality improvement efforts. However, at least 32 different measures have been used to evaluate COC. The manifold variations for measuring COC arise from data source restrictions, purpose (research or clinical use), perspective (patient or provider), and patient visit frequency/type. Key factors distinguishing common COC formulas are data source (e.g. claims data or electronic medical records), and whether a PCP is identifiable. There is no "right" formula, so understanding the nuances of COC measurement is essential for primary care research and clinical quality improvement. While the full complexity of COC cannot be captured by formulas and indices, they provide an important measure of how consistently patients are interacting with the same provider.

Factors Associated with Corticosteroid Adherence in Sarcoidosis.

PURPOSE: We measured corticosteroid medication adherence (CMA) in sarcoidosis patients and analyzed if demographic and clinical factors, beliefs about medications, corticosteroid side-effects, psychosocial status, and the doctor-patient relationship were associated with corticosteroid adherence. METHODS: Sarcoidosis patients receiving corticosteroids were eligible to participate. CMA was measured using the Medication Adherence Response Scale-10 (MARS-10), a validated patient reported outcome measure (PRO). Data collection included patient demographics and clinical variables to assess their sarcoidosis phenotype. The patients were administered additional PROs concerning their psychosocial status, beliefs about medication use, corticosteroid side-effects and the strength of their doctor-patient relationship. RESULTS: 132 patients were enrolled. Their mean prednisone dose was 9.9 ± 7.5 mg/day. 75% (99/132) were adherent with corticosteroids (MARS-10 ≥ 6) and 25% (33/132) were nonadherent (MARS-10 < 6). All demographic features, education level, and annual family income were not associated with CMA. Most clinical variables including spirometry, use of additional sarcoidosis drugs, number of organs involved with sarcoidosis were not associated with CMA. Almost all PROs including a better attitude toward medication use, less psychological issues, less corticosteroid side-effects, and a stronger doctor-patient relationship were associated with better CMA. A multi-logistic regression found that patient-doctor communication and the patient's intrinsic beliefs about the use of medications remained associated with CMA. CONCLUSION: We found no significant relationship between demographic or socioeconomic factors and CMA. Few clinical factors were associated with CMA. In a univariate analysis, CMA was associated with physician-doctor communication, beliefs about medication use, psychological/emotional issues, and corticosteroid side-effects. Only the first two of these factors remained associated with CMA in a multi-logistic analysis. These data suggest that CMA is heavily influenced by sarcoidosis patient beliefs about medications, and less so by patient demographics.

Interactional competencies in medical student admission- what makes a "good medical doctor"?

Doctors' interactional competencies play a crucial role in patient satisfaction, well-being, and compliance. Accordingly, it is in medical schools' interest to select candidates with strong interactional abilities. While Multiple Mini Interviews (MMIs) provide a useful context to assess such abilities, the evaluation of candidate performance during MMIs is not always based on a solid theoretical framework. The newly developed selection procedure "Interactional Competencies - Medical Doctors (IC-MD)" uses an MMI circuit with five simulation patient scenarios and is rated based on the theoretically and empirically grounded construct of emotional availability. A first validation study with N = 70 first-semester medical students took place in 2021. In terms of convergent validity, IC-MD ratings showed strong correlations with simulation patients' satisfaction with the encounter (r =.57) but no association with emotional intelligence measures. IC-MD ratings were not related to high school performance or a cognitive student aptitude test, indicating divergent validity. Inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.63) and generalizability (Eρ2 = 0.64) were satisfactory. The IC-MD proved to be fair regarding participants' age and gender. Participants with prior work experience in healthcare outperformed those without such experience. Participant acceptance of the procedure were good. The IC-MD is a promising selection procedure capable of assessing interactional competencies relevant to the medical setting. Measures of interactional competencies can complement the use of cognitive selection criteria in medical student admission. The predictive validity of the IC-MD needs to be addressed in future studies.

How and why do doctors communicate diagnostic uncertainty: An experimental vignette study.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic uncertainty is common, but its communication to patients is under-explored. This study aimed to (1) characterise variation in doctors' communication of diagnostic uncertainty and (2) explore why variation occurred. METHODS: Four written vignettes of clinical scenarios involving diagnostic uncertainty were developed. Doctors were recruited from five hospitals until theoretical saturation was reached (n = 36). Participants read vignettes in a randomised order, and were asked to discuss the diagnosis/plan with an online interviewer, as they would with a 'typical patient'. Semi-structured interviews explored reasons for communication choices. Interview transcripts were coded; quantitative and qualitative (thematic) analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: There was marked variation in doctors' communication: in their discussion about differential diagnoses, their reference to the level of uncertainty in diagnoses/investigations and their acknowledgement of diagnostic uncertainty when safety-netting. Implicit expressions of uncertainty were more common than explicit. Participants expressed both different communication goals (including reducing patient anxiety, building trust, empowering patients and protecting against diagnostic errors) and different perspectives on how to achieve these goals. Training in diagnostic uncertainty communication is rare, but many felt it would be useful. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation in diagnostic uncertainty communication exists, even in a controlled setting. Differing communication goals-often grounded in conflicting ethical principles, for example, respect for autonomy versus nonmaleficence-and differing ideas on how to prioritise and achieve them may underlie this. The variation in communication behaviours observed has important implications for patient safety and health inequalities. Patient-focused research is required to guide practice. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: In the design stage of the study, two patient and public involvement groups (consisting of members of the public of a range of ages and backgrounds) were consulted to gain an understanding of patient perspectives on the concept of communicating diagnostic uncertainty. Their feedback informed the formulations of the research questions and the choice of vignettes used.

Risk management and empirical study of the doctor-patient relationship: based on 1790 litigation cases of medical damage liability disputes in China.

BACKGROUND: Compensation for medical damage liability disputes (CMDLD) seriously hinders the healthy development of hospitals and undermines the harmony of the doctor-patient relationships (DPR). Risk management in the DPR has become an urgent issue of the day. The study aims to provide a comprehensive description of CMDLD in China and explore its influencing factors, and make corresponding recommendations for the management of risks in the DPR. METHODS: This study extracted data from the China Judgment Online - the official judicial search website with the most comprehensive coverage. Statistical analysis of 1,790 litigation cases of medical damage liability disputes (COMDLD) available from 2015 to 2021. RESULTS: COMDLD generally tended to increase with the year and was unevenly distributed by regions; the compensation rate was 52.46%, the median compensation was 134,900 yuan and the maximum was 2,234,666 yuan; the results of the single factor analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences between the compensation for different years, regions, treatment attributes, and trial procedures (P < 0.05); the correlation analysis showed that types of hospitals were significantly negatively associated with regions (R=-0.082, P < 0.05); trial procedures were significantly negatively correlated with years (R=-0.484, P < 0.001); compensat- ion was significantly positively correlated with years, regions, and treatment attributes (R = 0.098-0.294, P < 0.001) and negatively correlated with trial procedures (R=-0.090, P < 0.01); regression analysis showed that years, treatment attributes, and regions were the main factors affecting the CMDLD (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Years, regions, treatment attributes, and trial procedures affect the outcome of CMDLD. This paper further puts forward relevant suggestions and countermeasures for the governance of doctor-patient risks based on the empirical results. Including rational allocation of medical resources to narrow the differences between regions; promoting the expansion and sinking of high-quality resources to improve the level of medical services in hospitals at all levels; and developing a third-party negotiation mechanism for medical disputes to reduce the cost of medical litigation.

Should Doctor Robot possess moral empathy?

Critics of clinical artificial intelligence (AI) suggest that the technology is ethically harmful because it may lead to the dehumanization of the doctor-patient relationship (DPR) by eliminating moral empathy, which is viewed as a distinctively human trait. The benefits of clinical empathy-that is, moral empathy applied in the clinical context-are widely praised, but this praise is often unquestioning and lacks context. In this article, I will argue that criticisms of clinical AI based on appeals to empathy are misplaced. As psychological and philosophical research has shown, empathy leads to certain types of biased reasoning and choices. These biases of empathy consistently impact the DPR. Empathy may lead to partial judgments and asymmetric DPRs, as well as disparities in the treatment of patients, undermining respect for patient autonomy and equality. Engineers should consider the flaws of empathy when designing affective artificial systems in the future. The nature of sympathy and compassion (i.e., displaying emotional concern while maintaining some balanced distance) has been defended by some ethicists as more beneficial than perspective-taking in the clinical context. However, these claims do not seem to have impacted the AI debate. Thus, this article will also argue that if machines are programmed for affective behavior, they should also be given some ethical scaffolding.