Physicians' perspectives on continuity of care for patients involved in the criminal justice system: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, over 11 million individuals were admitted to prisons and jails in the United States. Because the majority of these individuals will return to the community, addressing their health needs requires coordination between community and correctional health care providers. However, few systems exist to facilitate this process and little is known about how physicians perceive and manage these transitions. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to characterize physicians' views on transitions both into and out of incarceration and describe how knowledge of a patient's criminal justice involvement impacts patient care plans. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between October 2018 and May 2019 with physicians from three community clinics in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Team members used a hybrid approach of deductive and inductive coding, in which a priori codes were defined based on the interview guide while also allowing for data-driven codes to emerge. RESULTS: Four themes emerged related to physicians' perceptions on continuity of care for patients with criminal justice involvement. Physicians identified disruptions in patient-physician relationships, barriers to accessing prescription medications, disruptions in insurance coverage, and problems with sharing medical records, as factors contributing to discontinuity of care for patients entering and exiting incarceration. These factors impacted patients differently depending on the direction of the transition. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings identified four disruptions to continuity of care that physicians viewed as key barriers to successful transitions into and out of incarceration. These disruptions are unlikely to be effectively addressed at the provider level and will require system-level changes, which Medicaid and managed care organizations could play a leading role in developing.

"Who wants me to do what?" varied expectations from key stakeholder groups in the surgical intensive care unit creates a challenging learning environment.

BACKGROUND: Surgical intensive care units (SICU) require complex care from a multi-disciplinary team. Frequent changes in team members can lead to shifting expectations for junior general surgical trainees, which creates a challenging working and learning environment. We aim to identify expectations of junior surgery trainee's medical knowledge and technical/non-technical skills at the start of their SICU rotation. We hypothesize that expectations will not be consistent across SICU stakeholder groups. METHODS: Twenty-eight individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with six SICU stakeholder groups at a medium-sized academic hospital. Expectations were identified from interview transcripts. Frequency counts were analyzed. RESULTS: Forty-one expectations were identified. 4 expectations were identified by a majority of interviewees. Most expectations were identified by 7 or fewer interviewees. 23 (53%) expectations were shared by at least one stakeholder group. 2 (8%) expectations were shared by all groups. CONCLUSIONS: SICU stakeholder groups identified ten medical knowledge, ten technical skill, and three non-technical skill expectations. Yet, few expectations were shared among the groups. Thus, SICU stakeholder groups have disparate expectations for surgery trainees in our SICU.

Communication Deficits Among Surgical Residents During Difficult Patient Family Conversations.

OBJECTIVES: To qualitatively analyze videotaped data of surgical residents and fellows interacting with standardized patients to identify communication weaknesses. To correlate our qualitative data with their quantitative scores. DESIGN: We used discourse analysis to identify negative communication patterns among 10 surgical residents and fellows who were tested on interpersonal competencies during an objective structured clinical examination in 2014. We then correlated our findings with the validated evaluation outcomes. Descriptive statistics were then used to quantify our findings. SETTING: The setting was an objective structured clinical examination performed in 2014 using standardized patient surrogate family members. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were a mix of first and third year surgical residents and critical care fellows. RESULTS: The item that most strongly differentiated the bottom 5 from the top 5 performers was not answering the patient appropriately. This was exhibited in 3 ways among the lowest performers in our study: (1) paternalism, (2) vagueness, and (3) dehumanization. Our statistical analyses showed that the overall number of negative communication behaviors correlated with negative staff scores (r = -0.653, p < 0.05). Dehumanization and paternalism were the 2 behaviors most strongly correlated with negative staff scores (r = 0.796 and 0.781 respectively, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We found the lowest performers responded inappropriately to the patient, which we further delineated into vagueness, paternalism, and dehumanization. We propose positive communication strategies be taught to residents to improve how they are perceived by patients.

Improving surgical residents' communication in disclosing complications: A qualitative analysis of simulated physician and patient surrogate conversations.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we explore surgical resident communication with simulated patient surrogates (SPs), in an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). METHODS: We use discourse analysis (DA), a qualitative approach to analyzing language, to evaluate our residents' interactions with simulated patient surrogates. After identifying problematic communication patterns, we apply communication theory to discuss our findings and provide suggestions for improvement. RESULTS: Residents consistently use bluntness, defined as delivering the news abruptly and without adequate preface, and evasiveness, defined as avoiding giving the news, to deliver difficult information. In addition, some residents use neutral language when empathetic language is warranted; and some try to direct the response of SPs, who then become defensive. Residents use evasiveness most frequently, followed by bluntness. These delivery methods often result in poor communication. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend further research in barriers to effective resident communication with patients, as well as future research on the positive effects of good communication on patient perception. Learning these skills will help residents to convey support and empathy to patients, thereby enhancing care.