Keystrokes, Mouse Clicks, and Gazing at the Computer: How Physician Interaction with the EHR Affects Patient Participation.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is mixed regarding how physicians' use of the electronic health record (EHR) affects communication in medical encounters. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the different ways physicians interact with the computer (mouse clicks, key strokes, and gaze) vary in their effects on patient participation in the consultation, physicians' efforts to facilitate patient involvement, and silence. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, observational study of video and event recordings of primary care and specialty consultations. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two physicians and 217 patients. MAIN MEASURES: Predictor variables included measures of physician interaction with the EHR (mouse clicks, key strokes, gaze). Outcome measures included active patient participation (asking questions, stating preferences, expressing concerns), physician facilitation of patient involvement (partnership-building and supportive talk), and silence. KEY RESULTS: Patients were less active participants in consultations in which physicians engaged in more keyboard activity (b = -0.002, SE = 0.001, p = 0.02). More physician gaze at the computer was associated with more silence in the encounter (b = 0.21, SE = 0.09, p = 0.02). Physicians' facilitative communication, which predicted more active patient participation (b = 0.65, SE = 0.14, p < 0.001), was not related to EHR activity measures. CONCLUSIONS: Patients may be more reluctant to actively participate in medical encounters when physicians are more physically engaged with the computer (e.g., keyboard activity) than when their behavior is less demonstrative (e.g., gazing at EHR). Using easy to deploy communication tactics (e.g., asking about a patient's thoughts and concerns, social conversation) while working on the computer can help physicians engage patients as well as maintain conversational flow.

Strategizing EHR use to achieve patient-centered care in exam rooms: a qualitative study on primary care providers.

OBJECTIVE: Electronic health records (EHRs) have great potential to improve quality of care. However, their use may diminish "patient-centeredness" in exam rooms by distracting the healthcare provider from focusing on direct patient interaction. The authors conducted a qualitative interview study to understand the magnitude of this issue, and the strategies that primary care providers devised to mitigate the unintended adverse effect associated with EHR use. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 healthcare providers at 4 Veterans Affairs (VAs) outpatient primary care clinics in San Diego County. Data analysis was performed using the grounded theory approach. RESULTS: The results show that providers face demands from both patients and the EHR system. To cope with these demands, and to provide patient-centered care, providers attempt to perform EHR work outside of patient encounters and create templates to streamline documentation work. Providers also attempt to use the EHR to engage patients, establish patient buy-in for EHR use, and multitask between communicating with patients and using the EHR. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This study has uncovered the challenges that primary care providers face in integrating the EHR into their work practice, and the strategies they use to overcome these challenges in order to maintain patient-centered care. These findings illuminate the importance of developing "best" practices to improve patient-centered care in today's highly "wired" health environment. These findings also show that more user-centered EHR design is needed to improve system usability.

Caring for 'Very Important Patients'--Ethical Dilemmas and Suggestions for Practical Management.

The care of Very Important Patients (VIPs) is different from other patients because they may receive greater access, attention, and resources from health care staff. Although the term VIP is used regularly in the medical literature and is implicitly understood, in practice it constitutes a wide and heterogeneous group of patients that have a strong effect on health care providers. We define a VIP as a very influential patient whose individual attributes and characteristics (eg, social status, occupation, position), coupled with their behavior, have the potential to significantly influence a clinician's judgment or behavior. Physicians, celebrities, the politically powerful, and philanthropists, may all become VIPs in the appropriate context. The quality of care may be inferior because health care professionals may deviate from standard practices when caring for them. Understanding the common features among what may otherwise be very different groups of patients can help health care providers manage ethical concerns when they arise. We use a series of vignettes to demonstrate how VIPs behavior and status can influence a clinician's judgment or actions. Appreciating the ethical principles in these varied circumstances provides health care professionals with the tools to manage ethical conflicts that arise in the care of VIPs. We conclude each vignette with guidance for how health care providers and administrators can manage the ethical concern.

EHR use and patient satisfaction: What we learned.

PURPOSE: Few studies have quantitatively examined the degree to which the use of the computer affects patients' satisfaction with the clinician and the quality of the visit. We conducted a study to examine this association. METHODS: Twenty-three clinicians (21 internal medicine physicians, 2 nurse practitioners) were recruited from 4 Veteran Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) clinics located in San Diego, Calif. Five to 6 patients for most clinicians (one patient each for 2 of the clinicians) were recruited to participate in a study of patient-physician communication. The clinicians' computer use and the patient-clinician interactions in the exam room were captured in real time via video recordings of the interactions and the computer screen, and through the use of the Morae usability testing software system, which recorded clinician clicks and scrolls on the computer. After the visit, patients were asked to complete a satisfaction survey. RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 126 consultations. Total patient satisfaction (beta=0.014; P=.027) and patient satisfaction with patient-centered communication (beta=0.02; P=.02) were significantly associated with higher clinician "gaze time" at the patient. A higher percentage of gaze time during a visit (controlling for the length of the visit) was significantly associated with greater satisfaction with patient-centered communication (beta=0.628; P=.033). CONCLUSIONS: Higher clinician gaze time at the patient predicted greater patient satisfaction. This suggests that clinicians would be well served to refine their multitasking skills so that they communicate in a patient-centered manner while performing necessary computer-related tasks. These findings also have important implications for clinical training with respect to using an electronic health record (EHR) system in ways that do not impede the one-on-one conversation between clinician and patient.

Provider interaction with the electronic health record: the effects on patient-centered communication in medical encounters.

OBJECTIVE: The computer with the electronic health record (EHR) is an additional 'interactant' in the medical consultation, as clinicians must simultaneously or in alternation engage patient and computer to provide medical care. Few studies have examined how clinicians' EHR workflow (e.g., gaze, keyboard activity, and silence) influences the quality of their communication, the patient's involvement in the encounter, and conversational control of the visit. METHODS: Twenty-three primary care providers (PCPs) from USA Veterans Administration (VA) primary care clinics participated in the study. Up to 6 patients per PCP were recruited. The proportion of time PCPs spent gazing at the computer was captured in real time via video-recording. Mouse click/scrolling activity was captured through Morae, a usability software that logs mouse clicks and scrolling activity. Conversational silence was coded as the proportion of time in the visit when PCP and patient were not talking. After the visit, patients completed patient satisfaction measures. Trained coders independently viewed videos of the interactions and rated the degree to which PCPs were patient-centered (informative, supportive, partnering) and patients were involved in the consultation. Conversational control was measured as the proportion of time the PCP held the floor compared to the patient. RESULTS: The final sample included 125 consultations. PCPs who spent more time in the consultation gazing at the computer and whose visits had more conversational silence were rated lower in patient-centeredness. PCPs controlled more of the talk time in the visits that also had longer periods of mutual silence. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs were rated as having less effective communication when they spent more time looking at the computer and when there was more periods of silence in the consultation. Because PCPs increasingly are using the EHR in their consultations, more research is needed to determine effective ways that they can verbally engage patients while simultaneously managing data in the EHR. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: EHR activity consumes an increasing proportion of clinicians' time during consultations. To ensure effective communication with their patients, clinicians may benefit from using communication strategies that maintain the flow of conversation when working with the computer, as well as from learning EHR management skills that prevent extended periods of gaze at computer and long periods of silence. Next-generation EHR design must address better usability and clinical workflow integration, including facilitating patient-clinician communication.

Faculty development to enhance humanistic teaching and role modeling: a collaborative study at eight institutions.

BACKGROUND: There is increased emphasis on practicing humanism in medicine but explicit methods for faculty development in humanism are rare. OBJECTIVE: We sought to demonstrate improved faculty teaching and role modeling of humanistic and professional values by participants in a multi-institutional faculty development program as rated by their learners in clinical settings compared to contemporaneous controls. DESIGN: Blinded learners in clinical settings rated their clinical teachers, either participants or controls, on the previously validated 10-item Humanistic Teaching Practices Effectiveness (HTPE) questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: Groups of 7-9 participants at 8 academic medical centers completed an 18-month faculty development program. Participating faculty were chosen by program facilitators at each institution on the basis of being promising teachers, willing to participate in the longitudinal faculty development program. INTERVENTION: Our 18-month curriculum combined experiential learning of teaching skills with critical reflection using appreciative inquiry narratives about their experiences as teachers and other reflective discussions. MAIN MEASURES: The main outcome was the aggregate score of the ten items on the questionnaire at all institutions. KEY RESULTS: The aggregate score favored participants over controls (P = 0.019) independently of gender, experience on faculty, specialty area, and/or overall teaching skills. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal, intensive faculty development that employs experiential learning and critical reflection likely enhances humanistic teaching and role modeling. Almost all participants completed the program. Results are generalizable to other schools.

Residents' perceptions about surrogate decision makers' financial conflicts of interest in ventilator withdrawal.

PURPOSE: There have been no studies to date that examine physicians' decisions to withdraw life-sustaining treatment for patients based on their surrogates' financial gain. The authors' objective was to ascertain physician attitudes about withdrawing life-sustaining treatment when financial considerations are involved. METHODS: A survey was developed and pretested containing eight scenarios in which a terminally ill patient's spouse had a decision to make regarding withdrawal of the ventilator, which was deemed medically futile. Nested variables included agreement or disagreement between the spouse and patient, decision to withdraw or continue the ventilator, and financial gain or no financial gain for the spouse. The authors surveyed all internal medicine residents at the University of California, San Diego in the autumn of 2011 and winter of 2012. The responses on each of the three variables for which respondents were likely to withdraw the ventilator were analyzed via student's t-tests. RESULTS: Residents were more likely to withdraw the ventilator when requested to do so than when it was requested to be continued. They were also more likely to withdraw the ventilator when there was agreement in the decision between the spouse and the patient. Residents were more likely to withdraw the ventilator when the spouse would not benefit financially. CONCLUSIONS: Internal medicine residents make some decisions about whether to withdraw life-sustaining treatment based on financial considerations. There needs to be ongoing communication with residents about end-of-life decisions where conflicts may exist between the surrogate decision makers and patients or physicians.

Ethical challenges for accountable care organizations: a structured review.

BACKGROUND: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are proliferating as a solution to the cost crisis in American health care, and already involve as many as 31 million patients. ACOs hold clinicians, group practices, and in many circumstances hospitals financially accountable for reducing expenditures and improving their patients' health outcomes. The structure of health care affects the ethical issues arising in the practice of medicine; therefore, like all health care organizational structures, ACOs will experience ethical challenges. No framework exists to assist key ACO stakeholders in identifying or managing these challenges. METHODS: We conducted a structured review of the medical ACO literature using qualitative content analysis to inform identification of ethical challenges for ACOs. RESULTS: Our analysis found infrequent discussion of ethics as an explicit concern for ACOs. Nonetheless, we identified nine critical ethical challenges, often described in other terms, for ACO stakeholders. Leaders could face challenges regarding fair resource allocation (e.g., about fairly using ACOs' shared savings), protection of professionals' ethical obligations (especially related to the design of financial incentives), and development of fair decision processes (e.g., ensuring that beneficiary representatives on the ACO board truly represent the ACO's patients). Clinicians could perceive threats to their professional autonomy (e.g., through cost control measures), a sense of dual or conflicted responsibility to their patients and the ACO, or competition with other clinicians. For patients, critical ethical challenges will include protecting their autonomy, ensuring privacy and confidentiality, and effectively engaging them with the ACO. DISCUSSION: ACOs are not inherently more or less "ethical" than other health care payment models, such as fee-for-service or pure capitation. ACOs' nascent development and flexibility in design, however, present a time-sensitive opportunity to ensure their ethical operation, promote their success, and refine their design and implementation by identifying, managing, and conducting research into the ethical issues they might face.

Do extratherapeutic factors affect residents' decisions to prescribe medication for erectile dysfunction in ethically challenging scenarios?

PURPOSE: To examine residents' attitudes about prescribing medication for erectile dysfunction in ethically challenging scenarios. METHOD: In 2009, the authors surveyed internal medicine and family medicine residents at the University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, asking them to indicate how likely they would be to prescribe sildenafil citrate to patients in 10 hypothetical scenarios. Eight scenarios had three nested variables: sexual identity, HIV status, and risk level. Two involved adulterous behavior; these were compared with two with monogamous behavior. The survey included four attitudinal questions about medical care and societal values. RESULTS: Of 128 eligible residents, 81 (63%) responded. Respondents were more likely to prescribe sildenafil to hypothetical patients with low-risk behavior than to those with high-risk behavior (P < .001), more likely to prescribe sildenafil to patients who were HIV negative than to those who were HIV positive (P < .001), and more likely to prescribe sildenafil to monogamous patients than to patients in adulterous relationships (P < .001). Respondents who agreed that physicians are obliged to protect patients from their own risky behavior were likely to prescribe sildenafil in fewer scenarios than those who disagreed (P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Extratherapeutic factors influenced residents' decisions about prescribing medication for erectile dysfunction. Paternalistic attitude was the only attitudinal factor that affected likelihood of prescribing sildenafil. Residency programs should help trainees understand the balance between respecting patients' rights and protecting society, and between personal values and professional obligations, as well as how biases may affect patient care.

"Pay-for-performance" as a quality improvement tool: perceptions and policy recommendations of physicians and program leaders.

BACKGROUND: Although pay-for-performance (P4P) compensation is widespread, questions have arisen about its efficacy in improving health care quality and consequences for vulnerable patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess perceptions of general internists and P4P program leaders regarding how to implement fair and effective P4P. METHODS: Qualitative investigation using in-depth interviews with P4P program leaders and focus groups with general internists. RESULTS: Internists emphasized a gradual and cautious approach to P4P implementation. They strongly recommended improving P4P measure validity and had detailed suggestions regarding how. Program leaders saw a need to implement perhaps imperfect programs but with continual improvement. Both groups advocated protecting vulnerable populations and made overlapping recommendations: improving measure validity; adjusting for patient characteristics; measuring improvements in quality (vs cutpoints); and providing incentives to physicians of vulnerable populations. Internists tended to favor explicit protections, while program leaders felt that P4P might inherently protect vulnerable patients by improving overall quality. DISCUSSION: Internists favored gradual P4P implementation, while P4P leaders saw an immediate need for implementation with iterative improvement. Both groups recommended specific measures to protect vulnerable populations such as improving measure validity, assessing improvements in quality, and providing special incentives to physicians of vulnerable populations.

When the patient does not pay: a survey of primary care physicians.

OBJECTIVE: Despite ethical implications, there are anecdotal reports of health practitioners withholding services from patients who do not pay their bills. We surveyed physicians about their attitudes and experiences regarding nonpaying patients. DESIGN: A cross-sectional mailed survey. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred seventy-nine of 1000 surveyed primary care physicians participated. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We studied how likely participants were to withhold 13 services from hypothetical patients who did not pay the physician's bills based on a 4-point Likert scale. Respondents were asked whether they had actually ever withheld such services from patients. The effects of demographic data on the number of services withheld from hypothetical and actual patients were analyzed by analysis of variance and multiple logistic regression. Most respondents (84%) would have withheld at least 1 item of service from the hypothetical patient, with 41% having ever withheld care from their actual patients. Most services involved administrative actions, but many respondents would be willing to forego other types of medical care. Being younger (P = 0.003), believing that patients are not always entitled to medical care (P = 0.002) and being in an urban practice (P = 0.03) were associated with withholding medical care from patients. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of primary care practitioners responding to our survey would be willing to withhold medical care from patients who do not pay their bills; some have actually done so despite ethical and legal mandates to the contrary. Physicians should be educated about the importance of the patient-physician relationship and their ethical obligations to patients.

High quality care and ethical pay-for-performance: a Society of General Internal Medicine policy analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pay-for-performance is proliferating, yet its impact on key stakeholders remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: The Society of General Internal Medicine systematically evaluated ethical issues raised by performance-based physician compensation. RESULTS: We conclude that current arrangements are based on fundamentally acceptable ethical principles, but are guided by an incomplete understanding of health-care quality. Furthermore, their implementation without evidence of safety and efficacy is ethically precarious because of potential risks to stakeholders, especially vulnerable patients. CONCLUSION: We propose four major strategies to transition from risky pay-for-performance systems to ethical performance-based physician compensation and high quality care. These include implementing safeguards within current pay-for-performance systems, reaching consensus regarding the obligations of key stakeholders in improving health-care quality, developing valid and comprehensive measures of health-care quality, and utilizing a cautious evaluative approach in creating the next generation of compensation systems that reward genuine quality.

What do you do when your loved one is ill? The line between physician and family member.

Conventional wisdom and professional ethics generally dictate that physicians should avoid doctoring family members because of potential conflicts of interest. Nevertheless, cross-sectional surveys find that the practice is commonplace. Physicians have unique opportunities to influence their family member's care because they possess knowledge and status within the health care system; however, when physicians participate in the care of family members, they must not lose objectivity and confuse their personal and professional roles. Because health care systems are complicated, medical information is difficult to understand, and medical errors are common, it can be a great relief for families to have someone "on the inside" who is accessible and trustworthy. Yet, the benefits of becoming involved in a loved one's care are accompanied by risks, especially when a physician takes action that a nonphysician would be incapable of performing. Except for convenience, most if not all of the benefits of getting involved can be realized by physician-family members acting as a family member or an advocate rather than as a physician. Rules about what is or what is not appropriate for physician-family members are important but insufficient to guide physicians in every circumstance. Physician-family members can ask themselves, "What could I do in this situation if I did not have a medical degree?" and consider avoiding acts that require a medical license.

Primary care physicians' decisions about discharging patients from their practices.

OBJECTIVE: There are few data available about factors which influence physicians' decisions to discharge patients from their practices. To study general internists' and family medicine physicians' attitudes and experiences in discharging patients from their practices. DESIGN: A cross-sectional mailed survey was used. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand general internists and family medicine physicians participated in this study. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We studied the likelihood physicians would discharge 12 hypothetical patients from their practices, and whether they had actually discharged such patients. The effect of demographic data on the number of scenarios in which patients were likely to be discharged, and the number of patients actually discharged were analyzed via ANOVA and multiple logistic regression analysis. Of 977 surveys received by subjects, 526 (54%) were completed and returned. A majority of respondents were willing to discharge patients in 5 of 12 hypothetical scenarios. Eighty-five percent had actually discharged at least one patient from their practices. Most respondents (71%) had discharged 10 or fewer patients, but 14% had discharged 11 to 200 patients. Respondents who were in private practice (p < 0.000001) were more likely to discharge both hypothetical and actual patients from their practices. Older physicians (> or =48 years old) were more likely to discharge actual patients from their practices (p = 0.005) as were physicians practicing in rural settings (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Most physicians in our sample were willing to discharge actual and hypothetical patients from their practices. This tendency may have significant implications for the initiation of pay-for-performance programs. Physicians should be educated about the importance of the patient-physician relationship and their fiduciary obligations to the patient.

Parameters for treatment of cocaine-positive patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify the parameters by which oral and maxillofacial surgeons and anesthesiologists make decisions as to the safety for proceeding with surgery and anesthesia in cocaine-positive patients and to determine a national consensus of opinion, if possible. METHODS: Questionnaires were mailed to all known oral and maxillofacial surgery training programs and anesthesiology training programs in the United States (n = 241). Programs were queried as to screening, testing, parameters, and outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 241 questionnaires mailed, 114 (47%) were returned. Identification on the returns was optional; therefore, it was impossible to determine the total from each discipline. Only 16% of the programs had a formalized policy for cocaine screening prior to surgery and anesthesia. There was significant variability in the length of delay/time lapse before proceeding with anesthesia and surgery in the face of cocaine positivity. CONCLUSION: Based on the returned questionnaires and literature searches, the authors propose that patients who test positive for cocaine in their urine may undergo necessary surgical and anesthetic care, after an 8-hour period of discontinuing of cocaine, if the individual is hemodynamically stable.

BRIEF REPORT: health care provided by program directors to their resident physicians and families.

BACKGROUND: Who provides health care to resident physicians is not well studied. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether residency program directors (PDs)provide health care to their own residents and residents' families. DESIGN: An anonymous survey mailed to 1,345 PDs in Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, Medicine-Pediatrics,and Obstetrics-Gynecology in the United States in 2003. RESULTS: Six hundred nineteen PDs (46%) responded. Half had taken care of their own residents for acute conditions. Less commonly, directors had written prescriptions for acute (40%) or chronic needs (15%}or provided ongoing care (22%). Only 3% believed this conflicted with their ability to be effective directors. Responders more likely to provide future care to residents considered this kind of care generally appropriate(P< .001), or appropriate under certain circumstances {P< .001).Most of these spent > 31% of their time seeing patients. There was no difference among types of programs, gender of the director, or the years as director. Twenty-five percent of directors provided care to their residents' families. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial numbers of directors provided healthcare to their own residents. Few believed this conflicted with their director role. We believe organizations of PDs should develop positions about this practice.

Physicians' decisions to withhold and withdraw life-sustaining treatment.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available about physicians' decisions in regard to withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining measures. We therefore studied internists' views on this subject. METHODS: We surveyed 1000 generalist and subspecialist internists about their views on withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. Thirty-two hypothetical cases were included. The effect of the demographic data on withholding or withdrawing treatment was analyzed via analysis of covariance and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 1000 internists, 407 (41%) completed and returned surveys. A majority of respondents (51%) were willing to withhold or withdraw treatment in all 32 scenarios; 49% were unwilling to withhold or withdraw in at least 1 scenario. Respondents were likely to withhold treatment in 14 of 16 scenarios compared with 13.7 of 16 scenarios for withdrawing treatments (P<.001). Respondents withheld or withdrew feeding tubes in 6.6 of 8 scenarios (P<.001) and antibiotics in 6.7 of 8 scenarios (P = .001) compared with ventilators (7.1 of 8 scenarios) and dialysis (7.3 of 8 scenarios). Respondents were less likely to withhold or withdraw treatments in nonterminally ill (12.9 of 16 scenarios) (P = .02) and alert patients (13.2 of 16 scenarios) (P<.001) compared with terminally ill patients (14.9 of 16 scenarios) and patients with dementia (14.5 of 16 scenarios). CONCLUSIONS: A large percentage of internists would be unwilling to adhere to some of patients' wishes to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. The clinical scenario and type of treatment affect internists' decisions about whether they would withhold or withdraw such treatment.

Conflicts in the surgeon's duties to the patient and society.

Surgeons may face a dilemma in which their obligations to their patients and their obligations to others or society may conflict. One way of examining these conflicts is through a model as depicted in Fig. 1. When both the patient and society are benefited (eg, in cases of routine surgical care), the surgeon may proceed with the planned treatment. In situations where it is agreed that both the patient and society will be harmed (eg, surgeon involvement in capital punishment or in many cases of deception), the surgeon should avoid acting in a manner against that of the patient. Many situations, however, involve the need to weigh the benefits and burdens of both the patient and society. In these cases, surgeons need to analyze carefully all of the ethical and legal issues involved, and make a decision based on their own set of values.