Surgeons’ non-transparent facemasks challenge the physician–patient relationship in the orthopedic outpatient clinic of a tertiary university hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective cohort study of 285 patients

Background and purpose — Facemasks play a role in preventing the respiratory spread of SARS-CoV-2, but their impact on the physician–patient relationship in the orthopedic outpatient clinic is unclear. We investigated whether the type of surgeons’ facemask impacts patients’ perception of the physician–patient relationship, influences their understanding of what the surgeon said, or affects their perceived empathy. Patients and methods — All patients with an appointment in the orthopedic outpatient clinic of a tertiary university hospital during the 2-week study period were included. During consultations, all surgeons wore a non-transparent (first study week) or transparent facemask (second study week). Results of 285 of 407 eligible patients were available for analysis. The doctor–patient relationship was evaluated using the standardized Patient Reactions Assessment (PRA) and a 10-point Likert-scale questionnaire ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree). Results — A non-transparent facemask led to more restrictions in the physician–patient communication and a worse understanding of what the surgeon said. Patients’ understanding improved with a transparent facemask with greatest improvements reported by patients aged 65 years and older (non-transparent: 6 [IQR 5–10] vs. transparent: 10 [IQR 9–10], p < 0.001) and by patients with a self-reported hearing impairment (non-transparent: 7 [IQR 3–7] vs. transparent: 9 [IQR 9–10], p < 0.001). The median PRA score was higher when surgeons wore a transparent facemask (p= 0.003). Interpretation — Surgeons’ non-transparent facemasks pose a new communication barrier that can negatively affect the physician–patient relationship. While emotional factors like affectivity and empathy seem to be less affected overall, the physician–patient communication and patients’ understanding of what the surgeon said seem to be negatively affected.

Empathic Validation in Physician–Patient Communication: An Approach to Conveying Empathy for Problems With Uncertain Solutions

Interest in systematic approaches to improving clinical empathy has increased. However, conceptualizations of empathy are inconsistent and difficult to operationalize. Drawing on video recordings of primary care visits with older adults, I describe one particular communication strategy for conveying empathy—empathic validation. Using conversation analysis, I show that the design of empathic validations and the context in which they are delivered are critical to positive patient responses. Effective empathic validations must (a) demonstrate shared understanding and (b) support the patient’s position. Physicians provided empathic validation when there was no medical solution to offer and within this context, for three purposes: (1) normalizing changes in health, (2) acknowledging individual difficulty, and (3) recognizing actions or choices. Empathic validation is a useful approach because it does not rely on patients’ ability to create an “empathic opportunity” and has particular relevance for older adults.

Clinical Utility and Physician Perceptions of a Digital Platform for Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Monitoring in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies in Real-World Practice

Background There is now great interest in using digital health tools to monitor patients' health status in real-world practice. Such tools often include electronic-patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems in which symptoms questions are included into online interfaces for patient self-reporting, with real-time alerts triggered to the treating physician if severe symptoms or problems are reported. However, there is little information about the clinical utility and user perceptions of these systems, and this is particularly true in the area of hematology. Objectives This study investigates physicians' perceptions of usability and clinical utility of using remote ePROs in routine practice of patients with hematologic malignancies and explored implications in the delivery of patient care. Patients and Methods Remote ePROs are being gathered since December 2020 by the ALLIANCE Digital Health Platform, whose details of the development process have been previously described (Efficace F. et al., JMIR Res Protoc. 2021 Jun 1;10:e25271). Adult patients diagnosed with any hematologic malignancy are eligible to enter the platform, after having provided written informed consent. Aspects related to health-related quality of life (HRQoL), symptoms and medication adherence are assessed via validated PRO measures. The platform allows for real-time graphical presentation to physicians of individual patient symptoms and HRQoL outcomes. Based on a pre-defined algorithm, which includes the presence of clinically important problems and symptoms, the platform triggers automated alerts to the treating haematologists and medical staff. The definition of clinically important problems and symptoms is based on previously defined evidence-based thresholds (Giesinger J. et al., J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Feb;118:1-8). We asked treating haematologists a feedback about their experience in using the platform, by an ad hoc web-survey consisting of 27 items covering several domains, including: usability and benefits, current use, evaluation of patient health-status, symptoms and adverse events, as well as physician-patient communication. We summarized characteristics of enrolled patients and treating haematologists by proportions, mean, median and range. We also used logistic regression analysis to check the possible association of characteristics of haematologists with survey results. Results Of the 201 patients invited to participate between December 2020 and June 2021 (cut-off date for current analysis), 180 (90%) accepted to enter the ALLIANCE platform, currently activated in 19 centers. The median age of patients was 57 years (range 21-91) and 58% were males. The majority were diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukemia (n=32, 18%) and multiple myeloma (n=31, 17%) and were in stable disease (n=89, 49%). Twenty-three hematologists (44% males) with a median age of 42 years (range 31-63) and an average 17 years (range 5-34) of experience in clinical practice, completed the survey. The majority of physicians (78%) accessed the platform at least once per month (of whom 39% at least once per week), regardless the alerts sent by the system about patients' clinically relevant problems. The frequency of access on a regular basis was also independent of physician sex (p=0.393) and years of experience in clinical practice (p=0.404). Overall, 57% of hematologists discussed often or very often ePROs with their patients, while 83% and 61% deemed this information helpful to better identify symptomatic adverse events (AEs) of grade 1-2 or of grade 3-4, respectively (see figure). Also, 87% and 91% of hematologists found ePROs useful to improve physician-patient communication and the accuracy of documentation of symptomatic AEs (regardless of severity), respectively. Physicians' responses to selected items of the survey are reported in the figure. Conclusions: Current findings support the clinical utility, from the perspective of the treating physician, of integrating ePROs into routine cancer care of patients with hematologic malignancies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Efficace: Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: Grants (to Institution); Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Grants (to Institution). Breccia: Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Fazio: Janseen: Honoraria. Petrucci: Karyopharm: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; GSK: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Rigacci: Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses; Gilead Science: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Tafuri: Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Siragusa: Novartis, CSL, Behring, Amgen, Novonoridsk, SOBI, Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Patriarca: Incyte: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Argenix: Honoraria. Luppi: Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; Gilead Science: Honoraria, Other: Travel grant; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Jazz Pharma: Honoraria. Vignetti: Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Entrustment in physician-patient communication: a modified Delphi study using the EPA approach

Background Competency based curricula across the globe stress on the importance of effective physician patient communication. A variety of courses have been used to train physicians for this purpose. However, few of them link competencies with practice resulting in confusions in implementation and assessment. This issue can be resolved by treating certain specific patient communication related tasks as acts of entrustment or entrustable professional activities (EPAs). In this study, we aimed to define a competency-based framework for assessing patient physician communication using the language of EPAs. Methods A modified Delphi study was conducted in three stages. The first stage was an extensive literature review to identify and elaborate communication related tasks which could be treated as EPAs. The second stage was content validation by medical education experts for clarity and representativeness. The third stage was three iterative rounds of modified Delphi with predefined consensus levels. The McNemar test was used to check response stability in the Delphi Rounds. Results Expert consensus resulted in development of 4 specific EPAs focused on physician-patient communication with their competencies and respective assessment strategies all aiming for level 5 of unsupervised practice. These include Providing information to the patient or their family about diagnosis or prognosis; Breaking Bad news to the patient or their family; Counseling a patient regarding their disease or illness; Resolving conflicts with patients or their families. Conclusions The EPAs for Physician-patient communication are a step toward an integrative, all-inclusive competency-based assessment framework for patient-centered care. They are meant to improve the quality of physician patient interaction by standardizing communication as a decision of entrustment. The EPAs can be linked to competency frameworks around the world and provide a useful assessment framework for effective training in patient communication. They can be integrated into any post graduate curriculum and can also serve as a self-assessment tool for postgraduate training programs across the globe to improve their patient communication curricula.

Understanding holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) recovery: Assessing patient expectations and understanding

Introduction: Although holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a highly effective surgery, there is a variable recovery period where patients may experience hematuria, dysuria, or urinary incontinence (UI). Despite preoperative consultation, there is a paucity of literature examining the effectiveness of physician-patient communication in preparing the patient for the postoperative recovery period. We sought to examine recovery expectations as a patient-reported outcome (PRO) metric for HoLEP. Methods: With institutional review board approval, we queried our electronic medical record and retrospective clinical registry to identify 50 consecutive patients that underwent HoLEP from November 2019 to March 2020 by two endourologists. Patients were provided questionnaires via Twistle© ≥6 months postoperatively. Patient demographics and perioperative course was examined in the context of responses. Our primary objective was determining whether patients felt they had a reasonable understanding of the recovery process. Results: We observed a 92% (46/50) response rate, with an average patient age of 69.4 years (range 55–88). Overall, 91.3% (42/46) felt they had a reasonable understanding of the recovery. Additionally, 97.8% (45/46) were aware of temporary UI, with 87% having ≥1 episodes of UI after catheter removal. We found 47.8% (22/46) of patients expected UI to resolve within 30 days, while 8.6% expected >90 days of UI. All patients were aware of the risk of hematuria, with 93.5% (43/46) expecting resolution within 30 days (<7 days: 47.8%; 7–14 days: 28.3%; 15–30 days: 17.4%). Conclusions: Although surgical technique continues to improve HoLEP, ensuring adequate physician-patient communication to optimize expectations is crucial. We report patient understanding of HoLEP recovery and areas for future improvement.

An ID-Associated Application to Facilitate Patient-Tailored Management of Multiple Sclerosis

Despite improvements in diagnosis and treatment, multiple sclerosis (MS) is the leading neurological cause of disability in young adults. As a chronic disease, MS requires complex and challenging management. In this context, eHealth has gained an increasing relevance. Here, we aim to summarize beneficial features of a mobile app recently implemented in clinical MS routine as well as beyond MS. PatientConcept is a CE-certified, ID-associated multilingual software application allowing patients to record relevant health data without disclosing any identifying data. Patients can voluntarily share their health data with selected physicians. Since its implementation in 2018, about 3000 MS patients have used PatientConcept. Initially developed as a physician–patient communication platform, the app maps risk management plans of all current disease modifying therapies and thereby facilitates adherence to specified monitoring appointments. It also allows continuous monitoring of various PROs (PatientReportedOutcomes), enabling a broad overview of the disease course. In addition, various studies/projects currently assess monitoring, follow-up, diagnostics and telemetric evaluations of patients with other diseases beyond MS. Altogether, PatientConcept offers a broad range of possibilities to support physician–patient communication, implementation of risk management plans and assessment of PROs. It is a promising tool to facilitate patient-tailored management of MS and other chronic diseases.

Primary care consultations on emotional distress – a part of the acculturation process in patients with refugee backgrounds: a grounded theory approach

Background Considering the global refugee crisis, there is an increasing demand on primary care physicians to be able to adequately assess and address the health care needs of individual refugees, including both the somatic and psychiatric spectra. Meanwhile, intercultural consultations are often described as challenging, and studies exploring physician–patient communication focusing on emotional distress are lacking. Therefore, the aim was to explore physician–patient communication, with focus on cultural aspects of emotional distress in intercultural primary care consultations, using a grounded theory approach, considering both the physician’s and the patient’s perspective. Methods The study was set in Region Stockholm, Sweden. In total, 23 individual interviews and 3 focus groups were conducted. Resident physicians in family medicine and patients with refugee backgrounds, originating from Somalia, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, were included. Data was analysed using a grounded theory approach. Results Over time, primary care patients with refugee backgrounds seemed to adopt a culturally congruent model of emotional distress. Gradual acceptance of psychiatric diagnoses as explanatory models for distress and suffering was noted, which is in line with current tendencies in Sweden. This acculturation might be influenced by the physician. Three possible approaches used by residents in intercultural consultations were identified: “biomedical”, “didactic” and “compensatory”. They all indicated that diagnoses are culturally valid models to explain various forms of distress and may thus contribute to shifting patient perceptions of psychiatric diagnoses. Conclusions Physicians working in Swedish primary care may influence patients’ acculturation process by inadvertently shifting their perceptions of psychiatric diagnoses. Residents expressed concerns, rather than confidence, in dealing with these issues. Focusing part of their training on how to address emotional distress in an intercultural context would likely be beneficial for all parties concerned.

Variance components of ratings of physician-patient communication: A generalizability theory analysis

Background The ratings of physician-patient communication are an important indicator of the quality of health care delivery and provide guidance for many important decisions in the health care setting and in health research. But there is no gold standard to assess physician-patient communication. Thus, depending on the specific measurement condition, multiple sources of variance may contribute to the total score variance of ratings of physician-patient communication. This may systematically impair the validity of conclusions drawn from rating data. Objective To examine the extent to which different measurement conditions and rater perspectives, respectively contribute to the variance of physician-patient communication ratings. Methods Variance components of ratings of physician-patient communication gained from 32 general practitioners and 252 patients from 25 family practices in Germany were analyzed using generalizability theory. The communication dimensions “shared decision making”, “effective and open communication” and “satisfaction” were considered. Results Physician-patient communication ratings most substantially reflect unique rater-perspective and communication dimension combinations (32.7% interaction effect). The ratings also represented unique physician and rater-perspective combinations (16.3% interaction effect). However, physicians’ communication behavior and the observed communication dimensions revealed only a low extent of score variance (1% physician effect; 3.7% communication dimension effect). Approximately half of the variance remained unexplained (46.2% three-way interaction, confounded with error). Conclusion The ratings of physician-patient communication minimally reflect physician communication skills in general. Instead, these ratings exhibit primarily differences among physicians and patients in their tendency to perceive shared decision making and effective and open communication and to be satisfied with communication, regardless of the communication behavior of physicians. Rater training and assessing low inferential ratings of physician-patient communication dimensions should be considered when subjective aspects of rater perspectives are not of interest.