Physician Work-Personal Intersection: A Scoping Review of Terms, Definitions, and Measures.

PURPOSE: A substantial body of evidence describes the multidimensional relationship between the intersection of physicians' work and personal lives and health care quality and costs, workforce sustainability, and workplace safety culture. However, there is no clear consensus on the terms, definitions, or measures used in physician work-personal intersection (WPI) research. In this scoping review, the authors aimed to describe the terms and definitions used by researchers to describe physician WPI, summarize the measurement tools used, and formulate a conceptual model of WPI that can inform future research. METHOD: The authors searched PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies that investigated U.S. practicing physicians' WPI and measured WPI as an outcome from January 1990 to March 2022. The authors applied thematic analysis to all WPI terms, definitions, and survey questions or prompts in the included studies to create a conceptual model of physician WPI. RESULTS: Ultimately, 102 studies were included in the final analysis. The most commonly used WPI terms were work-life balance, work-life integration, and work-home or work-life conflict(s). There was no consistency in the definition of any terms across studies. There was heterogeneity in the way WPI was measured, and only 8 (7.8%) studies used a validated measurement tool. The authors identified 6 key driver domains of WPI: work and personal demands; colleague and institutional support and resources; personal identity, roles, health, and values; work schedule and flexibility; partner and family support; and personal and professional strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found significant variability in the terms, definitions, and measures used to study physician WPI. They offer a conceptual model of the WPI construct that can be used to more consistently study physician WPI in the future. Future work should further investigate the validity of this model and generate consensus around WPI terms, definitions, and measures.

Adolescent Access to Clinicians' Notes: Adolescent, Parent, and Clinician Perspectives.

PURPOSE: In 2021, federal guidelines mandated that health-care organizations share clinicians' notes with patients to increase information transparency. While findings indicate advantages for adult patients, less is known about note-sharing from the viewpoint of adolescents. This study aims to identify adolescent, parent, and clinician perspectives on the anticipated benefits and concerns of giving adolescents access to clinicians' notes and strategies to support note-sharing in this population. METHODS: We conducted six focus groups with adolescents, parents, and clinicians at a children's hospital from May to October 2021. A semistructured facilitator guide captured participant perspectives of note-sharing benefits, concerns, and strategies. Two researchers independently coded and analyzed transcript data using thematic analysis; a third researcher reconciled discrepancies. RESULTS: 38 stakeholders (17 adolescents, 10 parents, and 11 clinicians) described four benefits, three concerns, and four implementation strategies regarding adolescent note-sharing. Potential benefits included adolescents using notes to remember and reinforce the visit, gaining knowledge about their health, strengthening the adolescent-clinician relationship, and increasing agency in health care decisions. Concerns included notes leading to a breach in confidentiality, causing negative emotions, and becoming less useful for clinicians. Strategies included making note-sharing more secure, optimizing note layout and content, setting clear expectations, and having a portion of the note for clinician use only. DISCUSSION: Stakeholders suggest multiple strategies to optimize the implementation of note-sharing to support adolescent patients, parents, and clinicians as hospitals work to comply with federal regulations. These strategies may reinforce the potential benefits and mitigate the challenges of sharing notes with adolescent patients.

Parent Experiences with the Process of Sharing Inpatient Safety Concerns for Children with Medical Complexity: A Qualitative Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the process of identifying and reporting inpatient safety concerns from the perspective of parents of children with medical complexity (CMC). METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with 31 English and Spanish-speaking parents of CMC at two tertiary children's hospitals. Interviews lasted 45-60 minutes and were audio-recorded, translated, and transcribed. Three researchers inductively and deductively coded transcripts using an iteratively refined codebook with validation by a fourth researcher. Thematic analysis was used to develop a conceptual model of the process of inpatient parent safety reporting. RESULTS: We identified four steps illustrating the process of inpatient parent safety concern reporting 1) parent recognizing concern, 2) parent reporting concern, 3) staff/hospital response continuum, and 4) parent feelings of validation/invalidation. Many parents endorsed that they were the first to catch a safety concern and were identified as unique reporters of safety information. Parents typically described reporting their concerns verbally and in real-time to the person they felt could quickly remedy the situation. There was a spectrum of validation. Some parents reported their concerns were not acknowledged and addressed, which led them to feel overlooked, disregarded, or judged. Others reported their concerns were acknowledged and addressed, resulting in parents feeling heard and seen and often leading to changes in clinical care. CONCLUSIONS: Parents described a multi-step process of reporting safety concerns during hospitalization and a spectrum of staff response and validation. These findings can inform family-centered interventions that support safety concern reporting in the inpatient setting.

Gender Difference in Teaching Evaluation Scores of Pediatric Faculty.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate associations between faculty gender and milestone-based teaching assessment scores assigned by residents. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of milestone-based clinical teaching assessments of pediatric faculty completed by pediatric residents at a mid-sized residency program from July 2016 to June 2019. Assessments included 3 domains (Clinical Interactions, Teaching Skills, Role Modeling/Professionalism) comprised of a total of 11 sub-competency items. We used multilevel logistic regression accounting for repeat measures and clustering to evaluate associations between faculty gender and assessment scores in the 1) top quartile, 2) bottom quartile, or 3) top-box (highest score). Findings were adjusted for faculty rank and academic track, and resident year and gender. RESULTS: Over 3 years, 2889 assessments of 104 faculty were performed by 91 residents. Between assessments of women and men faculty, there were no significant differences in the odds of receiving a score in the top quartile for the 3 domains (Clinical aOR 0.99, P = .86; Teaching aOR 0.99, P = .93; Role Modeling aOR 0.87, P = .089). However, assessments of women were more likely to receive a score in the bottom quartile in both Teaching (aOR 1.23, P = .019) and Role Modeling (aOR 1.26, P = .008). Assessments of women also had lower odds of receiving the highest score in 6 of 11 sub-competencies. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that gender bias may play a role in resident assessments of pediatric faculty. Future studies are needed to determine if findings are replicated in other settings and to identify opportunities to reduce the gender gap in pediatric academic medicine.

In-Home COVID-19 Testing for Children With Medical Complexity: Feasibility and Association With School Attendance and Safety Perceptions.

The REstarting Safe Education and Testing program for children with medical complexity was implemented in May 2021 at the University of Wisconsin to evaluate the feasibility of in-home rapid antigen COVID-19 testing among neurocognitively affected children. Parents or guardians administered BinaxNOW rapid antigen self-tests twice weekly for three months and changed to symptom and exposure testing or continued surveillance. In-home testing was feasible: nearly all (92.5%) expected tests were conducted. Symptomatic testing identified seven of nine COVID-19 cases. School safety perceptions were higher among those opting for symptom testing. Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT04895085. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S9):S878-S882. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306971).

Caregiver perceptions of in-home COVID-19 testing for children with medical complexity: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In-home direct antigen rapid testing (DART) plays a major role in COVID-19 mitigation and policy. However, perceptions of DART within high-risk, intellectually impaired child populations are unknown. This lack of research could negatively influence DART uptake and utility among those who stand to benefit most from DART. The purpose of this study was to describe caregivers' perceptions of an in-home COVID-19 DART regimen in children with medical complexity, including the benefits and limitations of DART use. METHODS: This qualitative study was a subproject of the NIH Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics Underserved Populations research program at the University of Wisconsin. We combined survey data and the thematic analysis of semi-structured interview data to understand caregivers' perceptions of in-home COVID-19 testing and motivators to perform testing. Caregivers of children with medical complexity were recruited from the Pediatric Complex Care Program at the University of Wisconsin (PCCP). Data were collected between May and August 2021. RESULTS: Among n = 20 caregivers, 16/20 (80%) of their children had neurologic conditions and 12/20 (60%) used home oxygen. Survey data revealed that the largest caregiver motivators to test their child were to get early treatment if positive (18/20 [90%] of respondents agreed) and to let the child's school know if the child was safe to attend (17/20 [85%] agreed). Demotivators to testing included that the child could still get COVID-19 later (7/20 [35%] agreed), and the need for officials to reach out to close contacts (6/20 [30%] agreed). From interview data, four overarching themes described perceptions of in-home COVID-19 testing: Caregivers perceived DART on a spectrum of 1) benign to traumatic and 2) simple to complex. Caregivers varied in the 3) extent to which DART contributed to their peace of mind and 4) implications of test results for their child. CONCLUSIONS: Although participants often described DART as easy to administer and contributing to peace of mind, they also faced critical challenges and limitations using DART. Future research should investigate how to minimize the complexity of DART within high-risk populations, while leveraging DART to facilitate safe school attendance for children with medical complexity and reduce caregiver burden.