Transgender People's Experiences Sharing Information With Clinicians: A Focus Group-Based Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: Investigating transgender people's experiences sharing health information in clinical encounters may yield insights for family medicine clinicians. METHODS: This was a qualitative study using a community-based participatory research approach and interpretive description methodology. Seven qualitative focus groups were conducted with 30 transgender adults living in North America. We used purposive sampling to ensure diversity. The focus groups were transcribed verbatim, and 2 investigators independently reviewed and coded each transcript, then they mutually reviewed the transcripts, reconciled their coding, and summarized the codes into themes. Themes were reviewed with community members, participants, and uninvolved clinically oriented investigators for member checking and peer debriefing. RESULTS: Four themes were noted: (1) transgender people often perceive clinicians' questions as voyeuristic, stigmatizing, or self-protective; (2) patients describe being pathologized, denied or given substandard care, or harmed when clinicians learned they are transgender; (3) transgender people frequently choose between risking stigma when sharing information and risking ineffective clinical problem solving if clinicians do not have all the information about their medical histories; (4) improving the safety of transgender people is difficult in the context of contemporary medical systems. CONCLUSIONS: Transgender people often must choose between stigma and potentially suboptimal care. Improvements in medical culture, policies, procedures, and data collection tools are necessary to improve the quality and safety of clinical care for transgender people. Institutional and systems changes may be required to safely and effectively implement sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data collection in clinical settings.

Experiences of Transgender People Reviewing Their Electronic Health Records, a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The 21st Century Cures Act and the OpenNotes movement have brought patients immediate access to their electronic health records (EHRs). The experiences of marginalized people, including transgender people, accessing and reviewing their EHRs could inform documentation guidelines to improve patient-clinician rapport and reduce harm. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the experiences of transgender people reviewing EHRs. DESIGN: Qualitative study using community-engaged research and an interpretive description methodology. Participants were recruited via social media, snowball sampling was employed, and purposive sampling was used to ensure diversity in terms of age, race/ethnicity, and other factors. In focus groups, participants were asked to discuss their experiences reviewing their EHRs and, for those participants who were clinicians, their experiences reviewing other clinicians' documentation. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty transgender adults aged 20 to 67 years, including 10 clinicians. APPROACH: Digital audio-recordings of focus groups were transcribed verbatim. Content was analyzed to identify emerging essential elements and analysis was continued until no new themes emerged (i.e., saturation). KEY RESULTS: Four themes were noted. (1) Using the wrong name, pronoun, or gender marker for patients is common in the EHR, erodes trust, and causes trauma. (2) Various aspects of clinicians' notes contradict, blame, or stigmatize patients, across multiple axes of oppression. (3) Limitations of EHR capabilities create barriers to quality care. (4) Certain medical customs set the stage for marginalizing, objectifying, and pathologizing transgender people. CONCLUSIONS: Transgender people experience harm via various aspects of EHR documentation, suggesting that changes must be made to improve patient-clinician relationships and reduce ill-effects for patients.

Description and Evaluation of an Evidence-Based Residency Curriculum Using the Evidence-Based Medicine Environment Survey.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Teaching medical trainees evidence-based medicine (EBM) is required by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Most published graduate EBM curricula focus on critical appraisal over point-of-care information mastery. Faculty at the University of Rochester Family Medicine Residency implemented a clinically integrated, cyclical EBM curriculum juxtaposing information mastery with expert-level skills such as critical appraisal. We administered the Evidence-Based Medicine Environment Survey (EBMES) to learners before and after the yearlong curriculum. METHODS: Two cohorts of participating third-year residents completed the EBMES before and after an EBM curriculum. RESULTS: Over 2 years, 21 residents completed pre- and postevaluations. Resident perception of the EBM educational and practice environment was high at baseline and improved for 15 of 36 survey items (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Resident perception of the EBM learning environment improved after participation in a yearlong curriculum. Nearly all of the content covered in the "Science of Family Medicine" curriculum and measured by EBMES improved in a statistically significant manner. We propose that EBM curricula should combine traditional literature search and critical appraisal skills with information mastery to maximize effectiveness. Our curriculum can be modified to fit other graduate family medicine contexts.