A Qualitative Study of Preclinical Medical Students Randomized to Patient-Partnered vs Traditional Clinical Experiences.

Purpose: Longitudinal patient-partnered experiences may promote medical student empathy, but evaluation of such programs is limited. The aim of this study was to compare areas of learning among first-year medical students randomized to a patient-centered track (PCT) or traditional track (TT) longitudinal clinical experience. Methods: PCT students (n=24) were paired with 2 patients and a physician to participate in their patients' care across multiple settings. TT students (n=56) were paired with a physician preceptor and participated in caring for a variety of patients in a single setting. This qualitative study used a phenomenological approach to template analysis, examining and comparing student reflective essays for areas of learning. Results: Three domains of learning emerged: 1) Focus of learning (biomedical, patient-centered); 2) Roles and relationships (clinical skills, relationship-building, teaching from preceptor and patients); and 3) Context of care (health systems science, interprofessional care). PCT students described patient-centered learning, relationship-building, and patients' role as teachers. In contrast, TT students emphasized biomedical learning, clinical skills development, and teaching from physician preceptors. Conclusions: Longitudinal patient-partnered clinical experiences provide rich opportunities for preclinical students to cultivate empathy and develop patient-centered values.

Primary care physician involvement during hospitalisation: a qualitative analysis of perspectives from frequently hospitalised patients.

OBJECTIVE: To explore frequently hospitalised patients' experiences and preferences related to primary care physician (PCP) involvement during hospitalisation across two care models. DESIGN: Qualitative study embedded within a randomised controlled trial. Semistructured interviews were conducted with patients. Transcripts were analysed using qualitative template analysis. SETTING: In the Comprehensive Care Programme (CCP) Study, in Illinois, USA, Medicare patients at increased risk of hospitalisation are randomly assigned to: (1) care by a CCP physician who serves as a PCP across both inpatient and outpatient settings or (2) care by a PCP as outpatient and by hospitalists as inpatients (standard care). PARTICIPANTS: Twelve standard care and 12 CCP patients were interviewed. RESULTS: Themes included: (1) Positive attitude towards PCP; (2) Longitudinal continuity with PCP valued; (3) Patient preference for PCP involvement in hospital care; (4) Potential for in-depth involvement of PCP during hospitalisation often unrealised (involvement rare in standard care; in CCP, frequent interaction with PCP fostered patient involvement in decision making); and (5) PCP collaboration with hospital-based providers frequently absent (no interaction for standard care patients; CCP patients emphasising PCP's role in interdisciplinary coordination). CONCLUSION: Frequently hospitalised patients value PCP involvement in the hospital setting. CCP patients highlighted how an established relationship with their PCP improved interdisciplinary coordination and engagement with decision making. Inpatient-outpatient relational continuity may be an important component of programmes for frequently hospitalised patients. Opportunities for enhancing PCP involvement during hospitalisation should be considered.

Intersectionality Research in Psychological Science: Resisting the Tendency to Disconnect, Dilute, and Depoliticize.

Psychological science has been slow to incorporate intersectionality as a concept and as a framework for conducting research. This limits not only the potential for intersectionality theory, but also limits the potential impact of the research claiming to use it. Mennies and colleagues conducted a study of psychopathology and treatment utilization using a large racially diverse sample of youth and frame their work as intersectional because they compare across three social categories (race, sex, and social class) and consider social issues that may impact the groups studied. We argue that while this represents a preliminary step, it does not represent intersectionality theory and praxis. In this article we review intersectional theory and praxis, examine psychological science and its resistance to fully incorporating intersectionality, and highlight how research must shift to be truly intersectional. Finally, we issue a call to the field to integrate intersectionality theory and praxis and to resist the tendency to dilute and depoliticize intersectionality theory and disconnect from its social justice frame.