Interprofessional conflict and conflict management in an educational setting.

Background: Whenever health professionals work together as a team, conflict is inevitable - some would argue even necessary. However, conflict can have negative effects on patient care, job satisfaction, personal wellness, and professional productivity. Purpose: This study aims to describe interprofessional conflicts in a hospital setting from the perspective of three groups of health science students. Methods: An online questionnaire survey collected data from 225 health science students (medicine, nursing, and social work) in Northern California (USA). Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted resulting in seven central themes of conflict. Results: There are differences among health professional students in terms of how conflict is experienced and managed. Nursing students and medical students were more likely to take on the "victim" role when explaining their conflict, and their conflicts were more likely to be intra-professional. The most common cause of conflicts was related to hierarchy and power issues. The majority were dissatisfied with the way the conflict was resolved. Conclusions: Findings from this study can be used to design interprofessional curriculum to improve outcomes from conflicts and improve wellbeing, job satisfaction, and reduce patient turnover.

Increasing confidence and changing behaviors in primary care providers engaged in genetic counselling.

BACKGROUND: Screening and counseling for genetic conditions is an increasingly important part of primary care practice, particularly given the paucity of genetic counselors in the United States. However, primary care physicians (PCPs) often have an inadequate understanding of evidence-based screening; communication approaches that encourage shared decision-making; ethical, legal, and social implication (ELSI) issues related to screening for genetic mutations; and the basics of clinical genetics. This study explored whether an interactive, web-based genetics curriculum directed at PCPs in non-academic primary care settings was superior at changing practice knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors when compared to a traditional educational approach, particularly when discussing common genetic conditions. METHODS: One hundred twenty one PCPs in California and Pennsylvania physician practices were randomized to either an Intervention Group (IG) or Control Group (CG). IG physicians completed a 6 h interactive web-based curriculum covering communication skills, basics of genetic testing, risk assessment, ELSI issues and practice behaviors. CG physicians were provided with a traditional approach to Continuing Medical Education (CME) (clinical review articles) offering equivalent information. RESULTS: PCPs in the Intervention Group showed greater increases in knowledge compared to the Control Group. Intervention PCPs were also more satisfied with the educational materials, and more confident in their genetics knowledge and skills compared to those receiving traditional CME materials. Intervention PCPs felt that the web-based curriculum covered medical management, genetics, and ELSI issues significantly better than did the Control Group, and in comparison with traditional curricula. The Intervention Group felt the online tools offered several advantages, and engaged in better shared decision making with standardized patients, however, there was no difference in behavior change between groups with regard to increases in ELSI discussions between PCPs and patients. CONCLUSION: While our intervention was deemed more enjoyable, demonstrated significant factual learning and retention, and increased shared decision making practices, there were few differences in behavior changes around ELSI discussions. Unfortunately, barriers to implementing behavior change in clinical genetics is not unique to our intervention. Perhaps the missing element is that busy physicians need systems-level support to engage in meaningful discussions around genetics issues. The next step in promoting active engagement between doctors and patients may be to put into place the tools needed for PCPs to easily access the materials they need at the point-of-care to engage in joint discussions around clinical genetics.

Implementing One Health as an integrated approach to health in Rwanda.

It is increasingly clear that resolution of complex global health problems requires interdisciplinary, intersectoral expertise and cooperation from governmental, non-governmental and educational agencies. 'One Health' refers to the collaboration of multiple disciplines and sectors working locally, nationally and globally to attain optimal health for people, animals and the environment. One Health offers the opportunity to acknowledge shared interests, set common goals, and drive toward team work to benefit the overall health of a nation. As in most countries, the health of Rwanda's people and economy are highly dependent on the health of the environment. Recently, Rwanda has developed a One Health strategic plan to meet its human, animal and environmental health challenges. This approach drives innovations that are important to solve both acute and chronic health problems and offers synergy across systems, resulting in improved communication, evidence-based solutions, development of a new generation of systems-thinkers, improved surveillance, decreased lag time in response, and improved health and economic savings. Several factors have enabled the One Health movement in Rwanda including an elaborate network of community health workers, existing rapid response teams, international academic partnerships willing to look more broadly than at a single disease or population, and relative equity between female and male health professionals. Barriers to implementing this strategy include competition over budget, poor communication, and the need for improved technology. Given the interconnectedness of our global community, it may be time for countries and their neighbours to follow Rwanda's lead and consider incorporating One Health principles into their national strategic health plans.

Improving health outcomes through concurrent HIV program scale-up and health system development in Rwanda: 20 years of experience.

The 1994 genocide against the Tutsi destroyed the health system in Rwanda. It is impressive that a small country like Rwanda has advanced its health system to the point of now offering near universal health insurance coverage. Through a series of strategic structural changes to its health system, catalyzed through international assistance, Rwanda has demonstrated a commitment towards improving patient and population health indicators. In particular, the rapid scale up of antiretroviral therapy (ART) has become a great success story for Rwanda. The country achieved universal coverage of ART at a CD4 cell count of 200 cells/mm(3) in 2007 and increased the threshold for initiation of ART to ≤350 cells/mm(3) in 2008. Further, 2013 guidelines raised the threshold for initiation to ≤500 cells/mm(3) and suggest immediate therapy for key affected populations. In 2015, guidelines recommend offering immediate treatment to all patients. By reviewing the history of HIV and the scale-up of treatment delivery in Rwanda since the genocide, this paper highlights some of the key innovations of the Government of Rwanda and demonstrates the ways in which the national response to the HIV epidemic has catalyzed the implementation of interventions that have helped strengthen the overall health system.

Impact of a randomized controlled educational trial to improve physician practice behaviors around screening for inherited breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many primary care physicians (PCPs) are ill-equipped to provide screening and counseling for inherited breast cancer. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of an interactive web-based genetics curriculum versus text curriculum for primary care physicians. DESIGN: Randomized two-group design. PARTICIPANTS: 121 California and Pennsylvania community physicians. INTERVENTION: Web-based interactive genetics curriculum, evaluated against a control group of physicians who studied genetics review articles. After education, physicians interacted with an announced standardized patient (SP) at risk for inherited breast cancer. MAIN MEASURES: Transcripts of visit discussions were coded for presence or absence of 69 topics relevant to inherited breast cancer. KEY RESULTS: Across all physicians, history-taking, discussions of test result implications, and exploration of ethical and legal issues were incomplete. Approximately half of physicians offered a genetic counseling referral (54.6%), and fewer (43.8%) recommended testing. Intervention physicians were more likely than controls to explore genetic counseling benefits (78.3% versus 60.7%, P = 0.048), encourage genetic counseling before testing (38.3% versus 21.3%, P = 0.048), ask about a family history of prostate cancer (25.0% versus 6.6%, P = 0.006), and report that a positive result indicated an increased risk of prostate cancer for male relatives (20.0% versus 1.6%, P = 0.001). Intervention-group physicians were less likely than controls to ask about Ashkenazi heritage (13.3% versus 34.4%, P = 0.01) or to reply that they would get tested when asked, "What would you do?" (33.3% versus 54.1%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians infrequently performed key counseling behaviors, and this was true regardless of whether they had completed the web-based interactive training or read clinical reviews.