Unprofessionalism in anesthesiology: A qualitative study on classifying unprofessional behavior in anesthesiology residency education.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify the domains that constitute behaviors perceived to be unprofessional in anesthesiology residency training programs. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: Anesthesiology residency training programs. PATIENTS: Not applicable. The participants involved residents, fellows, and faculty members purposefully sampled in four US-based anesthesiology residency programs. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were asked to submit examples of unprofessional behavior they witnessed in anesthesiology residents, fellows, or faculty members via a Qualtrics link. MEASUREMENTS: Not applicable. The behavior examples were independently reviewed and categorized into themes using content analysis. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 116 vignettes were collected, resulting in a final list of 111 vignettes after excluding those that did not describe behavior exhibited by anesthesiology faculty or trainees. Fifty-eight vignettes pertained to unprofessional behaviors observed in faculty members and 53 were observed in trainees (residents and fellows). Nine unprofessionalism themes emerged in the analysis. The most common themes were VERBAL, SUPERVISION, QUALITY, ENGAGEMENT, and TIME. As to the distribution of role group (faculty versus trainee) by theme, unprofessional behaviors falling into the categories of BIAS, GOSSIP, LEWD, and VERBAL were observed more in faculty; whereas themes with unprofessional behavior primarily attributed to trainees included ENGAGEMENT, QUALITY, TIME, and SUPERVISION. CONCLUSION: By reviewing reported professionalism-related vignettes within residency training programs, we identified classification descriptors for defining unprofessional behavior specific to anesthesiology residency education. Findings from this study enrich the definition of professionalism as a multi-dimensional competency pertaining to anesthesiology graduate medical education. This framework may facilitate preventative intervention and timely remediation plans for unprofessional behavior in residents and faculty.

Reflections on 'common' genetic medical history questions: Time to examine the what, why, and how.

OBJECTIVE: A central goal of patient-centered care is to establish a therapeutic relationship. While remaining in tune with patient emotions, genetics providers must ask questions to understand medical histories that will inform the differential diagnosis, evaluation plan, and potential treatments. METHODS: 195 audio-recorded conversations between providers and caregivers of pediatric patients with suspected genetic conditions were coded and analyzed. Coders identified sensitive history-taking questions asked by providers related to exposures and complications during pregnancy; ancestry and consanguinity; educational attainment of the caregiver; and family structure. RESULTS: We highlight examples of providers: using stigmatizing language about conception or consanguinity; not clarifying the intent behind questions related to caregivers' educational attainment and work history; and making presumptions or assumptions about caregivers' race and ethnicity, family structure, and exposures during pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Some questions and phrasing considered routine by genetics providers may interfere with patient-centered care by straining attempts to establish a therapeutic, trusting relationship. Additional research is needed to assess how question asking and phrasing impact rapport building and patient experience during genetics encounters. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Review of the purpose and need for medical history questions common to genetics practice could serve to improve patient-centered care.

Question prompt lists and caregiver question asking in pediatric specialty appointments: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Question prompt lists (QPLs) have been effective at increasing patient involvement and question asking in medical appointments, which is critical for shared decision making. We investigated whether pre-visit preparation (PVP), including a QPL, would increase question asking among caregivers of pediatric patients with undiagnosed, suspected genetic conditions. METHODS: Caregivers were randomized to receive the PVP before their appointment (n = 59) or not (control, n = 53). Appointments were audio-recorded. Transcripts were analyzed to determine questions asked. RESULTS: Caregivers in the PVP group asked more questions (MeanPVP = 4.36, SDPVP = 4.66 vs. Meancontrol = 2.83, SDcontrol = 3.03, p = 0.045), including QPL questions (MeanPVP = 1.05, SDPVP = 1.39 vs. Meancontrol = 0.36, SDcontrol = 0.81, p = 0.002). Caregivers whose child had insurance other than Medicaid in the PVP group asked more total and QPL questions than their counterparts in the control group (ps = 0.005 and 0.002); there was no intervention effect among caregivers of children with Medicaid or no insurance (ps = 0.775 and 0.166). CONCLUSION: The PVP increased question asking but worked less effectively among traditionally underserved groups. Additional interventions, including provider-focused efforts, may be needed to promote engagement of underserved patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patient/family-focused interventions may not be beneficial for all populations. Providers should be aware of potential implicit and explicit biases and encourage question asking to promote patient/family engagement.

The Burden of COVID-19 on Caregivers of Children with Suspected Genetic Conditions: A Therapeutic Odyssey.

AIMS: Children with disabilities and rare or undiagnosed conditions and their families have faced numerous hardships of living during the COVID-19 pandemic. For those with undiagnosed conditions, the diagnostic odyssey can be long, expensive, and marked by uncertainty. We, therefore, sought to understand whether and how COVID-19 impacted the trajectory of children's care. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 25 caregivers who, prior to the pandemic, were on a diagnostic odyssey for their children. RESULTS: Most caregivers did not report any interruptions to their child's diagnostic odyssey. The greatest impact was access to therapy services, including the suspension or loss of their child's in-person therapeutic care and difficulties with virtual therapies. This therapy gap caused caregivers to fear that their children were not making progress. CONCLUSION: Although much has been written about the challenges of diagnostic odysseys for children and their families, this study illustrates the importance of expanding the focus of these studies to include therapeutic odysseys. Because therapeutic odysseys continue regardless of whether diagnoses are made, future research should investigate how to support caregivers through children's therapies within and outside of the COVID-19 context.

Effects of Healthcare Organization Actions and Policies Related to COVID-19 on Perceived Organizational Support Among U.S. Internists: A National Study.

GOAL: Perceived organizational support (POS) may promote healthcare worker mental health, but organizational factors that foster POS during the COVID-19 pandemic are unknown. The goals of this study were to identify actions and policies regarding COVID-19 that healthcare organizations can implement to promote POS and to evaluate the impact of POS on physicians' mental health, burnout, and intention to leave patient care. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional national survey with an online panel of internal medicine physicians from the American College of Physicians in September and October of 2020. POS was measured with a 4-item scale, based on items from Eisenberger's Perceived Organizational Support Scale that were adapted for the pandemic. Mental health outcomes and burnout were measured with short screening scales. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The response rate was 37.8% (N = 810). Three healthcare organization actions and policies were independently associated with higher levels of POS in a multiple linear regression model that included all actions and policies as well as potential confounding factors: opportunities to discuss ethical issues related to COVID-19 (ß (regression coefficient) = 0.74, p = .001), adequate access to personal protective equipment (ß = 1.00, p = .005), and leadership that listens to healthcare worker concerns regarding COVID-19 (ß = 3.58, p < .001). Sanctioning workers who speak out on COVID-19 safety issues or refuse pandemic deployment was associated with lower POS (ß = -2.06, p < .001). In multivariable logistic regression models, high POS was associated with approximately half the odds of screening positive for generalized anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, burnout, and intention to leave patient care within 5 years. APPLICATIONS TO PRACTICE: Our results suggest that healthcare organizations may be able to increase POS among physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic by guaranteeing adequate personal protective equipment, making sure that leaders listen to concerns about COVID-19, and offering opportunities to discuss ethical concerns related to caring for patients with COVID-19. Other policies and actions such as rapid COVID-19 tests may be implemented for the safety of staff and patients, but the policies and actions associated with POS in multivariable models in this study are likely to have the largest positive impact on POS. Warning or sanctioning workers who refuse pandemic deployment or speak up about worker and patient safety is associated with lower POS and should be avoided. We also found that high degrees of POS are associated with lower rates of adverse outcomes. So, by implementing the tangible support policies positively associated with POS and avoiding punitive ones, healthcare organizations may be able to reduce adverse mental health outcomes and attrition among their physicians.