Patient Safety Over Power Hierarchy: A Scoping Review of Healthcare Professionals' Speaking-up Skills Training.

Communication failures in healthcare constitute a major root cause of adverse events and medical errors. Considerable evidence links failures to raise concerns about patient harm in a timely manner with errors in medication administration, hygiene and isolation, treatment decisions, or invasive procedures. Expressing one's concern while navigating the power hierarchy requires formal training that targets both the speaker's emotional and verbal skills and the receiver's listening skills. We conducted a scoping review to examine the scope and components of training programs that targeted healthcare professionals' speaking-up skills. Out of 9,627 screened studies, 14 studies published between 2005 and 2018 met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the existing training exclusively relied on one-time training, mostly in simulation settings, involving subjects from the same profession. In addition, most studies implicitly referred to positional power as defined by titles; few addressed other forms of power such as personal resources (e.g., expertise, information). Almost none addressed the emotional and psychological dimensions of speaking up. The existing literature provides limited evidence identifying effective training components that positively affect speaking-up behaviors and attitudes. Future opportunities include examining the role of healthcare professionals' conflict engagement style or leaders' behaviors as factors that promote speaking-up behaviors.

Implementation of the uterine fibroids Option Grid patient decision aids across five organizational settings: a randomized stepped-wedge study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroids are non-cancerous overgrowths of the smooth muscle in the uterus. As they grow, some cause problems such as heavy menstrual bleeding, pelvic pain, discomfort during sexual intercourse, and rarely pregnancy complications or difficulty becoming pregnant. Multiple treatment options are available. The lack of comparative evidence demonstrating superiority of any one treatment means that choosing the best option is sensitive to individual preferences. Women with fibroids wish to consider treatment trade-offs. Tools known as patient decision aids (PDAs) are effective in increasing patient engagement in the decision-making process. However, the implementation of PDAs in routine care remains challenging. Our aim is to use a multi-component implementation strategy to implement the uterine fibroids Option Grid™ PDAs at five organizational settings in the USA. METHODS: We will conduct a randomized stepped-wedge implementation study where five sites will be randomized to implement the uterine fibroid Option Grid PDA in practice at different time points. Implementation will be guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Normalization Process Theory (NPT). There will be a 6-month pre-implementation phase, a 2-month initiation phase where participating clinicians will receive training and be introduced to the Option Grid PDAs (available in text, picture, or online formats), and a 6-month active implementation phase where clinicians will be expected to use the PDAs with patients who are assigned female sex at birth, are at least 18 years of age, speak fluent English or Spanish, and have new or recurrent symptoms of uterine fibroids. We will exclude postmenopausal patients. Our primary outcome measure is the number of eligible patients who receive the Option Grid PDAs. We will use logistic and linear regression analyses to compare binary and continuous quantitative outcome measures (including survey scores and Option Grid use) between the pre- and active implementation phases while adjusting for patient and clinician characteristics. DISCUSSION: This study may help identify the factors that impact the implementation and sustained use of a PDA in clinic workflow from various stakeholder perspectives while helping patients with uterine fibroids make treatment decisions that align with their preferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov , NCT03985449. Registered 13 July 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03985449.

Development and evaluation of the "BRISK Scale," a brief observational measure of risk communication competence.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate a brief observational measure of clinical risk communication competence. METHODS: A 4-item checklist-type measure, the BRISK (Brief Risk Information Skill) Scale, was developed by selecting and refining items from a more comprehensive measure of clinical risk communication competence. Six volunteer raters received brief training on the measure and then used the BRISK Scale to evaluate 52 video-recorded encounters between 2nd-year medical students and standardized patients conducted as part of an Observed Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) involving a risk communication task. Internal consistency reliability, inter-rater reliability, and criterion validity were assessed. RESULTS: Raters reported no difficulties using the BRISK Scale; scores across all raters and subjects ranged from 0 to 16 with a mean score of 6.49 (SD=3.17). The BRISK Scale showed good internal consistency reliability (α=0.64), and inter-rater reliability at the scale level (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC)=0.79 for consistency, and 0.75 for absolute agreement) and individual-item level (ICC range: 0.62-.91). Novice raters' BRISK Scale scores were highly correlated (r=0.84, p<0.01) with expert raters' scores on the Risk Communication Content measure, a more comprehensive measure of risk communication competence. CONCLUSIONS: The BRISK Scale is a promising new brief observational measure of clinical risk communication competence.

How primary care providers talk to patients about alcohol: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol misuse is a common and well-documented source of morbidity and mortality. Brief primary care alcohol counseling has been shown to benefit patients with alcohol misuse. OBJECTIVE: To describe alcohol-related discussions between primary care providers and patients who screened positive for alcohol misuse. DESIGN: An exploratory, qualitative analysis of audiotaped primary care visits containing discussions of alcohol use. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 29 male outpatients at a Veterans Affairs (VA) General Internal Medicine Clinic who screened positive for alcohol misuse and their 14 primary care providers, all of whom were participating in a larger quality improvement trial. MEASUREMENTS: Audiotaped visits with any alcohol-related discussion were transcribed and coded using grounded theory and conversation analysis, both qualitative research techniques. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: (1) patients disclosed information regarding their alcohol use, but providers often did not explore these disclosures; (2) advice about alcohol use was typically vague and/or tentative in contrast to smoking-related advice, which was more common and usually more clear and firm; and (3) discomfort on the part of the provider was evident during alcohol-related discussions. LIMITATIONS: Generalizability of findings from this single-site VA study is unknown. CONCLUSION: Findings from this single site study suggest that provider discomfort and avoidance are important barriers to evidence-based brief alcohol counseling. Further investigation into current alcohol counseling practices is needed to determine whether these patterns extend to other primary care settings, and to inform future educational efforts.

Alcohol-related discussions during general medicine appointments of male VA patients who screen positive for at-risk drinking.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes primary care discussions with patients who screened positive for at-risk drinking. In addition, discussions about alcohol use from 2 clinic firms, one with a provider-prompting intervention, are compared. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analyses of audiotaped appointments collected over 6 months. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Male patients in a VA general medicine clinic were eligible if they screened positive for at-risk drinking and had a general medicine appointment with a consenting provider during the study period. Participating patients ( N = 47) and providers ( N = 17) were enrolled in 1 of 2 firms in the clinic (Intervention or Control) and were blinded to the study focus. INTERVENTION: Intervention providers received patient-specific results of positive alcohol-screening tests at each visit. MEASURES AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 68 visits taped, 39 (57.4%) included any mention of alcohol. Patient and provider utterances during discussions about alcohol use were coded using Motivational Interviewing Skills Codes. Providers contributed 58% of utterances during alcohol-related discussions with most coded as questions (24%), information giving (23%), or facilitation (34%). Advice, reflective listening, and supportive or affirming statements occurred infrequently (5%, 3%, and 5%, of provider utterances respectively). Providers offered alcohol-related advice during 21% of visits. Sixteen percent of patient utterances reflected "resistance" to change and 12% reflected readiness to change. On average, Intervention providers were more likely to discuss alcohol use than Control providers (82.4% vs 39.6% of visits; P =.026). CONCLUSIONS: During discussions about alcohol, general medicine providers asked questions and offered information, but usually did not give explicit alcohol-related advice. Discussions about alcohol occurred more often when providers were prompted.