Impact of a coaching program on resident perceptions of communication confidence and feedback quality.

BACKGROUND: While communication is an essential skill for providing effective medical care, it is infrequently taught or directly assessed, limiting targeted feedback and behavior change. We sought to evaluate the impact of a multi-departmental longitudinal residency communication coaching program. We hypothesized that program implementation would result in improved confidence in residents' communication skills and higher-quality faculty feedback. METHODS: The program was implemented over a 3-year period (2019-2022) for surgery and neurology residents at a single institution. Trained faculty coaches met with assigned residents for coaching sessions. Each session included an observed clinical encounter, self-reflection, feedback, and goal setting. Eligible residents completed baseline and follow-up surveys regarding their perceptions of feedback and communication. Quantitative responses were analyzed using paired t-tests; qualitative responses were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: The baseline and follow-up survey response rates were 90.0% (126/140) and 50.5% (46/91), respectively. In a paired analysis of 40 respondents, residents reported greater confidence in their ability to communicate with patients (inpatient: 3.7 vs. 4.3, p < 0.001; outpatient: 3.5 vs. 4.2, p < 0.001), self-reflect (3.3 vs. 4.3, p < 0.001), and set goals (3.6 vs. 4.3, p < 0.001), as measured on a 5-point scale. Residents also reported greater usefulness of faculty feedback (3.3 vs. 4.2, p = 0.001). The content analysis revealed helpful elements of the program, challenges, and opportunities for improvement. Receiving mentorship, among others, was indicated as a core program strength, whereas solving session coordination and scheduling issues, as well as lowering the coach-resident ratio, were suggested as some of the improvement areas. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that direct observation of communication in clinical encounters by trained faculty coaches can facilitate long-term trainee growth across multiple core competencies. Future studies should evaluate the impact on patient outcomes and workplace-based assessments.

Tips for developing a coaching program in medical education.

This article provides structure to developing, implementing, and evaluating a successful coaching program that effectively meets the needs of learners. We highlight the benefits of coaching in medical education and recognize that many educators desiring to build coaching programs seek resources to guide this process. We align 12 tips with Kern's Six Steps for Curriculum Development and integrate theoretical frameworks from the literature to inform the process. Our tips include defining the reasons a coaching program is needed, learning from existing programs and prior literature, conducting a needs assessment of key stakeholders, identifying and obtaining resources, developing program goals, objectives, and approach, identifying coaching tools, recruiting and training coaches, orienting learners, and evaluating program outcomes for continuous program improvement. These tips can serve as a framework for initial program development as well as iterative program improvement.

Physician Perceptions of Performance Feedback and Impact on Personal Well-Being: A Qualitative Exploration of Patient Satisfaction Feedback in Neurology.

BACKGROUND: To understand neurologists' experiences and perspectives on patient satisfaction feedback and its impact on personal well-being and behavior. METHODS: From May to June 2021, the researchers conducted 19 semistructured interviews with neurologists from a large academic medical center. Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory informed a combined inductive and deductive thematic analysis of the qualitative data, which focused on perceptions of current feedback practices, its impact on physician behavior, and recommendations for improvement. RESULTS: Participants tended to be female (n = 12/19, 63.2%), aged 30-39 (n = 8/19, 42.1%), white (n = 9/19, 47.4%), and were 10+ years into clinical practice (n = 18/19, 94.7%). Physicians were receptive to feedback overall, but perceptions varied by feedback type. Physicians preferred informal feedback (delivered unprompted directly by patients), given its tendency toward actionability. They disliked formal feedback (derived from anonymous surveys) due to low actionability, bias and validity issues, lack of contextual considerations, delivery through public reports, and links to financial incentives. Nearly all physicians reported formal feedback programs had the potential to negatively affect well-being and were not beneficial to their practice; a few reported adjusting their clinical practice to improve patient satisfaction performance. Five recommendations to improve patient satisfaction feedback programs emerged: Align on feedback intent, acknowledge survey limitations during program administration, increase actionability of feedback through specificity and control, support direct patient-physician feedback and problem resolution, and support empathetic integration of feedback. CONCLUSION: Understanding physician perceptions of current approaches to patient satisfaction feedback offers the opportunity to shape subsequent collection and distribution methods to improve physician performance and optimize professional fulfillment.

Developing a multi-departmental residency communication coaching program.

Background: Local needs assessments in our institution's surgery and neurology residency programs identified barriers to effective communication, such as no shared communication framework and limited feedback on nontechnical clinical skills. Residents identified faculty-led coaching as a desired educational intervention to improve communication skills. Three university departments (Surgery, Neurology, and Pediatrics) and health-care system leaders collaborated closely to develop an innovative communication coaching initiative generalizable to other residency programs. Innovation: Coaching program development involved several layers of collaboration between health-care system leaders, faculty educators, and departmental communication champions. The efforts included: (1) creating and delivering communication skills training to faculty and residents; (2) hosting frequent meetings among various stakeholders to develop program strategy, discuss opportunities and learnings, and engage other medical educators interested in coaching; (3) obtaining funding to implement the coaching initiative; (4) selecting coaches and providing salary and training support. Evaluation: A multi-phased mixed-methods study utilized online surveys and virtual semi-structured interviews to assess the program's quality and impact on the communication culture and the satisfaction and communication skills of residents. Quantitative and qualitative data have been integrated during data collection and analysis using embedding, building, and merging strategies. Discussion and Implications: Establishing a multi-departmental coaching program may be feasible and can be adapted by other programs if similar resources and focus are present. We found that stakeholders' buy-in, financial support, protected faculty time, flexible approach, and rigorous evaluation are crucial factors in successfully implementing and sustaining such an initiative.

Feasibility and acceptability of virtually coaching residents on communication skills: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Developing communication skills is a key competency for residents. Coaching, broadly accepted as a training modality in medical education, has been proven a successful tool for teaching communication skills. Little research is available thus far to investigate virtual coaching on communication skills for telemedicine encounters. The purpose of the study was to test the hypothesis that virtually coaching residents on communication skills is feasible and acceptable. We surveyed 21 resident-faculty pairs participating in a "fully virtual" coaching session (patient, coach, and resident were virtual). METHODS: We asked 50 neurology resident-faculty coach pairs to complete one "fully virtual" coaching session between May 20 and August 31, 2020. After each session, the resident and coach completed a 15-item survey, including Likert-style scale and open-ended questions, assessing feasibility and acceptability. Descriptive statistics and qualitative content and thematic analyses were performed. RESULTS: Forty-two percent (21/50) of all eligible residents completed "fully virtual" coaching sessions. The overall survey response rate was 91 % (38/42). The majority of respondents agreed that the direct observation and debriefing conversation were easy to schedule and occurred without technical difficulties and that debriefing elements (self-reflection, feedback, takeaways) were useful for residents. Ninety-five percent of respondents rated the coach's virtual presence to be not at all disruptive to the resident-patient interaction. Virtual coaching alleviated resident stress associated with observation and was perceived as an opportunity for immediate feedback and a unique approach for resident education that will persist into the future. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, residents and faculty coaches found virtual coaching on communication skills feasible and acceptable for telemedicine encounters. Many elements of our intervention may be adoptable by other residency programs. For example, residents may share their communication goals with clinic faculty supervisors and then invite them to directly observe virtual encounters what could facilitate targeted feedback related to the resident's goals. Moreover, virtual coaching on communication skills in both the in-person and telemedicine settings may particularly benefit residents in challenging encounters such as those with cognitively impaired patients or with surrogate decision-makers.

Patient and Clinician Perspectives of New and Return Ambulatory Teleneurology Visits.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the adoption and perceived utility of video visits for new and return patient encounters in ambulatory neurology subspecialties. METHODS: Video visits were launched in an academic, multi-subspecialty, ambulatory neurology clinic in March 2020. Adoption of video visits for new and return patient visits was assessed using clinician-level scheduling data from March 22 to May 16, 2020. Perceived utility of video visits was explored via a clinician survey and semistructured interviews with clinicians and patients/caregivers. Findings were compared across 5 subspecialties and 2 visit types (new vs return). RESULTS: Video visits were adopted rapidly; all clinicians (n = 65) integrated video visits into their workflow within the first 6 weeks, and 92% of visits were conducted via video, although this varied by subspecialty. Utility of video visits was higher for return than new patient visits, as indicated by surveyed (n = 48) and interviewed clinicians (n = 30), aligning with adoption patterns. Compared with in-person visits, clinicians believed that it was easier to achieve a similar physical examination, patient-clinician rapport, and perceived quality of care over video for return rather than new patient visits. Of the 25 patients/caregivers interviewed, most were satisfied with the care provided via video, regardless of visit type, with the main limitation being the physical examination. DISCUSSION: Teleneurology was robustly adopted for both new and return ambulatory neurology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Return patient visits were preferred over new patient visits, but both were feasible. These results provide a foundation for developing targeted guidelines for sustaining teleneurology in ambulatory care.

Rapid Implementation of Video Visits in Neurology During COVID-19: Mixed Methods Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine has been used for decades. Despite its many advantages, its uptake and rigorous evaluation of feasibility across neurology's ambulatory subspecialties has been sparse. However, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted health care systems worldwide to reconsider traditional health care delivery. To safeguard health care workers and patients, many health care systems quickly transitioned to telemedicine, including across neurology subspecialties, providing a new opportunity to evaluate this modality of care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accelerated implementation of video visits in ambulatory neurology during the COVID-19 pandemic, we used mixed methods to assess adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, and perceptions of potential sustainability. METHODS: Video visits were launched rapidly in ambulatory neurology clinics of a large academic medical center. To assess adoption, we analyzed clinician-level scheduling data collected between March 22 and May 16, 2020. We assessed acceptability, appropriateness, and sustainability via a clinician survey (n=48) and semistructured interviews with providers (n=30) completed between March and May 2020. RESULTS: Video visits were adopted rapidly; overall, 65 (98%) clinicians integrated video visits into their workflow within the first 6 implementation weeks and 92% of all visits were conducted via video. Video visits were largely considered acceptable by clinicians, although various technological issues impacted their satisfaction. Video visits were reported to be more convenient for patients, families, and caregivers than in-person visits; however, access to technology, the patient's technological capacity, and language difficulties were considered barriers. Many clinicians expressed optimism about future utilization of video visits in neurology. They believed that video visits promote continuity of care and can be incorporated into their practice long-term, although several insisted that they can never replace the in-person examination. CONCLUSIONS: Video visits are an important addition to clinical care in ambulatory neurology and are anticipated to remain a permanent supplement to in-person visits, promoting patient care continuity, and flexibility for patients and clinicians alike.

Accelerated launch of video visits in ambulatory neurology during COVID-19: Key lessons from the Stanford experience.

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has rapidly moved telemedicine from discretionary to necessary. Here, we describe how the Stanford Neurology Department (1) rapidly adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in over 1,000 video visits within 4 weeks, and (2) accelerated an existing quality improvement plan of a tiered roll out of video visits for ambulatory neurology to a full-scale roll out. Key issues we encountered and addressed were related to equipment/software, provider engagement, workflow/triage, and training. On reflection, the key drivers of our success were provider engagement and dedicated support from a physician champion, who plays a critical role understanding stakeholder needs. Before COVID-19, physician interest in telemedicine was mixed. However, in response to county and state stay-at-home orders related to COVID-19, physician engagement changed completely; all providers wanted to convert a majority of visits to video visits as quickly as possible. Rapid deployment of neurology video visits across all its subspecialties is feasible. Our experience and lessons learned can facilitate broader utilization, acceptance, and normalization of video visits for neurology patients in the present as well as the much anticipated postpandemic era.

Education Research: A novel resident-driven neurology quality improvement curriculum.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and assess the effectiveness of a neurology resident quality improvement curriculum focused on development of practical skills and project experience. METHODS: We designed and implemented a quality improvement curriculum composed of (1) a workshop series and (2) monthly resident-led Morbidity, Mortality, & Improvement conferences focused on case analysis and project development. Surveys were administered precurriculum and 18 months postcurriculum to assess the effect on self-assessed confidence with quality improvement skills, attitudes, and project participation. Scholarship in the form of posters, presentations, and manuscripts was tracked during the course of the study. RESULTS: Precurriculum, 83% of neurology residents felt that instruction in quality improvement was important, but most rated their confidence level with various skills as low. Following implementation of the curriculum, residents were significantly more confident in analyzing a patient case (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval) (2.4, 1.9-3.1), proposing system changes (3.1, 2.3-3.9), writing a problem statement (9.9, 6.2-13.5), studying a process (3.1, 2.3-3.8), identifying resources (3.1, 2.3-3.8), identifying appropriate measures (2.5, 1.9-3.0), collaborating with other providers to make improvements (4.9, 3.5-6.4), and making changes in a system (3.1, 2.3-3.8). Project participation increased from the precurriculum baseline (7/18, 39%) to the postcurriculum period (17/22, 77%; p = 0.023). One hundred percent of residents surveyed rated the curriculum positively. CONCLUSIONS: Our multifaceted curriculum was associated with increased resident confidence with quality improvement skills and increased participation in improvement projects. With adequate faculty mentorship, this curriculum represents a novel template for preparing neurology residents for meeting the expectations of improvement in practice and offers scholarship opportunities.

Essential steps in developing best practices to assess reflective skill: A comparison of two rubrics.

PURPOSE: Medical education lacks best practices for evaluating reflective writing skill. Reflection assessment rubrics include the holistic, reflection theory-based Reflection-on-Action and the analytic REFLECT developed from both reflection and narrative-medicine literatures. To help educators move toward best practices, we evaluated these rubrics to determine (1) rater requirements; (2) score comparability; and (3) response to an intervention. METHODS: One-hundred and forty-nine third-year medical students wrote reflections in response to identical prompts. Trained raters used each rubric to score 56 reflections, half written with structured guidelines and half without. We used Pearson's correlation coefficients to associate overall rubric levels and independent t-tests to compare structured and unstructured reflections. RESULTS: Reflection-on-Action training required for two hours; two raters attained an interrater-reliability = 0.91. REFLECT training required six hours; three raters achieved an interrater-reliability = 0.84. Overall rubric correlation was 0.53. Students given structured guidelines scored significantly higher (p < 0.05) on both rubrics. CONCLUSIONS: Reflection-on-Action and REFLECT offer unique educational benefits and training challenges. Reflection-on-Action may be preferred for measuring overall quality of reflection given its ease of use. Training on REFLECT takes longer but it yields detailed data on multiple dimensions of reflection that faculty can reference when providing feedback.