Improving Patient Experience by Teaching Empathic Touch and Eye Gaze: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Medical Students.

Background: Empathy is critical for optimal patient experience with health-care providers. Verbal empathy is routinely taught to medical students, but nonverbal empathy, including touch, less so. Our objective was to determine whether instruction encouraging empathic touch and eye gaze at exit can impact behaviors and change patient-perceived empathy. Materials: A randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial of 34 first-year medical students was conducted during standardized patient (SP) interviews. A video either encouraging empathic touch and eye gaze at exit or demonstrating proper hand hygiene (control) was shown. Encounter videos were analyzed for touch and eye gaze at exit. The Jefferson Scale of Patient Perceptions of Physician Empathy was used to measure correlations. Intervention students were surveyed regarding patient touch. Results: Of this, 23.5% of intervention students touched the SP versus zero controls; 88.2% of intervention students demonstrated eye gaze at exit. Eye gaze at exit positively impacted patient-perceived empathy (correlation = 0.48, P > .001). Survey responses revealed specific barriers to touch. Conclusion: Medical students may increase perceived empathy using eye gaze at exit. Instruction on empathic touch and sustained eye gaze at exit at the medical school level may be useful in promoting empathic nonverbal communication. Medical educators should consider providing specific instructions on how to appropriately touch patients during history-taking. This is one of the few studies to explore touch with patients and the first ever to report the positive correlation of a health provider's sustained eye gaze at exit with the patient's perceived empathy. Further studies are needed to explore barriers to empathic touch.

Specialty and Lifestyle Preference Changes during Medical School.

PURPOSE: Medical student specialty choices have significant downstream effects on the availability of physicians and, ultimately, the effectiveness of health systems. This study investigated how medical student specialty preferences change over time in relation to their demographics and lifestyle preferences. METHOD: Students from ten medical schools were surveyed at matriculation (2012) and graduation (2016). The two surveys included questions about specialty and lifestyle preferences, demographics, educational background, and indebtedness. Student data from 2012 to 2016 were paired together and grouped into those whose specialty preferences remained constant or switched. RESULTS: Response rates in 2012 and 2016 were 65% (997/1530) and 50% (788/1575), respectively. Fourth-year students ranked "enjoying the type of work I am doing" as less important to a good physician lifestyle than did first-year students (from 59.6 to 39.7%). The lifestyle factors "having control of work schedule" and "having enough time off work" were ranked as more important to fourth-year students than first-year students (from 15.6 to 18.2% and 14.8 to 31.9%, respectively). The paired dataset included 19% of eligible students (237/1226). Demographic and lifestyle factors were not significantly associated with specialty preference switching. Additionally, no significant association existed between changing lifestyle preferences and switching specialty preference (p = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: During the course of medical school, lifestyle preferences became more focused on day-to-day factors and less on deeper motivational factors. Neither demographics nor lifestyle preferences appear to relate to a student's decision to switch specialty preference during medical school. These findings represent an important step in uncovering causes of specialty preference trends.

Lifestyle factors and primary care specialty selection: comparing 2012-2013 graduating and matriculating medical students' thoughts on specialty lifestyle.

PURPOSE: To compare how first-year (MS1) and fourth-year students (MS4) ascribe importance to lifestyle domains and specialty characteristics in specialty selection, and compare students' ratings with their primary care (PC) interest. METHOD: In March 2013, MS4s from 11 U.S. MD-granting medical schools were surveyed. Using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = not important at all; 5 = extremely important), respondents rated the importance of 5 lifestyle domains and 21 specialty selection characteristics. One-way analysis of variance was used to assess differences by PC interest among MS4s. Using logistic regression, ratings from MS4s were compared with prior analyses of ratings by MS1s who matriculated to the same 11 schools in 2012. RESULTS: The response rate was 57% (965/1,701). MS4s, as compared with MS1s, rated as more important to good lifestyle: time off (4.3 versus 4.0), schedule control (4.2 versus 3.9), and financial compensation (3.4 versus 3.2). More MS4s than MS1s selected "time-off" (262/906 [30%] versus 136/969 [14%]) and "control of work schedule" (169/906 [19%] versus 146/969 [15%]) as the most important lifestyle domains. In both classes, PC interest was associated with higher ratings of working with the underserved and lower ratings of prestige and salary. CONCLUSIONS: In the 2012-2013 academic year, matriculating students and graduating students had similar perceptions of lifestyle and specialty characteristics associated with PC interest. Graduating students placed more importance on schedule control and time off than matriculating students. Specialties should consider addressing a perceived lack of schedule control or inadequate time off to attract students.

Primary care, the ROAD less traveled: what first-year medical students want in a specialty.

PURPOSE: Medical students are increasingly choosing non-primary-care specialties. Students consider lifestyle in selecting their specialty, but how entering medical students perceive lifestyle is unknown. This study investigates how first-year students value or rate lifestyle domains and specialty-selection characteristics and whether their ratings vary by interest in primary care (PC). METHOD: During the 2012-2013 academic year, the authors conducted a cross-sectional survey of first-year medical students from 11 MD-granting medical schools. Using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = not important at all; 5 = extremely important), respondents rated the importance of 5 domains of good lifestyle and 21 characteristics related to specialty selection. The authors classified students into five groups by PC interest and assessed differences by PC interest using one-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: Of 1,704 participants, 1,020 responded (60%). The option "type of work I am doing" was the highest-rated lifestyle domain (mean 4.8, standard deviation [SD] 0.6). "Being satisfied with the job" was the highest-rated specialty-selection characteristic (mean 4.7, SD 0.5). "Availability of practice locations in rural areas" was rated lowest (mean 2.0, SD 1.1). As PC interest decreased, the importance of "opportunities to work with underserved populations" also decreased, but importance of "average salary earned" increased (effect sizes of 0.98 and 0.94, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: First-year students valued enjoying work. The importance of financial compensation was inversely associated with interest in PC. Examining the determinants of enjoyable work may inform interventions to help students attain professional fulfillment in PC.

Stability of values during medical school.

BACKGROUND: Medical students' values represent an understudied area of research in medical education research. No known studies have investigated how medical students' values change over time from matriculation to graduation. AIM: Values are thought to remain relatively stable over the life course. However, little research supports this claim. Therefore, we examined the extent to which values change or remain the same during medical school. METHOD: Forty-six first-year medical students completed the Physician Values in Practice Scale (PVIPS) during their first and fourth years of medical school. The PVIPS contains 38 statements of values about medical practice and comprises six scales: Prestige, Service, Autonomy, Lifestyle, Management, and Scholarly Pursuits. RESULTS: Matched pair t-tests (p < 0.05) indicated significant differences between students' PVIPS scores pretest (first year of medical school) and posttest (fourth year of medical school) for 2 of the 6 values (Autonomy: t(45) = -4.12, p < 0.001 and Lifestyle: t(45) = -2.62, p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Medical students values appear to change slightly during their 4 years of medical education. In line with literature suggesting that the medical education process is associated with change in certain student qualities and attributes (e.g., empathy), physician values may be another variable so affected.

Further analysis of a doctor-patient nonverbal communication instrument.

This study examines the reliability and validity of the relational communication scale for observational measurement (RCS-O) using a random sample of 80 videotaped interactions of medical students interviewing standardized patients (SPs). The RCS-O is a 34-item instrument designed to measure the nonverbal communication of physicians interacting with patients. The instrument was applied and examined in two different interview scenarios. In the first scenario (year 1), the medical student's interview objective is to demonstrate patient-centered interviewing skills as the SP presents with a psychosocial concern. In the second scenario (year 3), the student's interview objective is to demonstrate both doctor-centered and patient-centered skills as the SP presents with a case common in primary care. In the year 1 scenario, 19 of the 34 RCS-O items met acceptable levels of inter-rater agreement and reliability. In the year 3 scenario, 26 items met acceptable levels of inter-rater agreement and reliability. Factor analysis indicated that in both scenarios each of the four primary relational communication dimensions was salient: intimacy, composure, formality, and dominance. Measures of correlation and differences involving the RCS-O dimensions and structural features of the interviews (e.g., number of questions asked by the medical student) are examined.