Evaluating an Interprofessional Team Coaching Program to Promote a Human-Centered ICU Environment.

How decisions are made and communication is handled are essential to ensuring a good outcome.In the case of Scardoni v Hawryluck,1 Mrs H was an 81-year-old woman with advanced Alzheimer disease, cardiovascular illness, and septic shock whose family and physician could not agree on goals for care, requiring that a legal decision be made regarding the level of care to be provided. Over time and after much discussion, the multidisciplinary team on the intensive care unit (ICU) reached a consensus that intensive care for Mrs H would not improve her condition. So it was decided that after Mrs H was stepped down to a general medical unit, should an infection or respiratory distress develop, she would not be returned to the ICU. The attending ICU physician informed the family that instead of ICU care, “the hospital would offer her palliative care: painkillers and sedatives to keep her comfortable while her afflictions took their course.”2 In this particular case, the patient’s family challenged the health care team’s recommendations and insisted that their mother be readmitted to the ICU so that aggressive life-sustaining treatment would continue.This case, although Canadian, is relevant to ICU settings throughout North America. The purpose of this discussion is not to provide an in-depth ethical analysis, but rather to use the case of Mrs H to characterize one type of health care situation that clinical ethicists could help facilitate. Medical recommendations such as those involved in the care of Mrs H are made to prevent the “revolving door” patient, who according to ICU teams will receive no medical benefit if returned to the ICU. Decisions not to readmit are euphemistically referred to by some ICU staff as the “one-way ticket out of ICU” or “celestial transfer.” Such language shared between colleagues reflects a coping strategy, a “gallows humor,” intended to manage difficult feelings like sadness, anger, grief, sympathy, or moral distress. Cases like that of Mrs H are of particular concern to critical care nursing. Research has indicated that moral distress, a significant contributing factor to burnout, is encountered by ICU nurses when the care they are providing to a patient is regarded as futile.3It is not uncommon for hospital-based clinical ethicists to receive a request for consultation when disputes regarding similar recommendations for care arise between substitute decision makers and the ICU treatment team. These cases can lead to moral distress because of commonly held opinions among team members that futile treatment is being provided. Although staff can provide many life-sustaining treatments to such a patient, ethical questions often arise during the patient’s stay in the ICU. What ought to happen when an ICU team decides that a patient should be transferred to a general medical unit to receive comfort measures only, with no readmission to the ICU? Although teams discuss the practical questions about what can be done, the ethical questions about what ought to be done are sometimes not as clear. The following discussion explores how clinical ethicists can provide valuable assistance with the kinds of ethical challenges these situations customarily present. Particular emphasis will be placed on working within a process-driven, interdisciplinary framework that maintains a communication-oriented approach to ethical decision making.Clinical ethics is a relatively new field, and the role and purpose of clinical ethicists can vary somewhat according to the particular health care setting. For the purpose of this discussion, the authors describe the knowledge, skills, and activities of clinical ethicists through their review of relevant literature as well as their own training and experiences as staff clinical ethicists at 2 acute care settings in Ontario, Canada.Greater legal clarity or legislative measures to specifically address conflicts that arise over withdrawal or withholding of treatment for terminally ill patients are required, according to at least one legal expert. Current Canadian law, according to this same scholar, leaves doctors, patients and their families in a “grey zone” as to who should have ultimate authority on such decisions.4 The daily reality in most North American ICUs is that this gray zone persists—for better or worse. Although hospitals attempt to provide guidelines for addressing conflicts such as the one involving Mrs H, it is the quality of communication and relationship within the interdisciplinary team and between the treating team and the patient’s family that has a marked influence on decision making.5–7 In most cases similar to this one, consensus about level of care is first achieved by the interdisciplinary team, and a subsequent agreement is reached between the treatment team and the patient’s substitute decision maker and family. However, when agreement cannot be reached because of irreconcilable notions pertaining to what constitutes benefit to the patient and what constitutes harm, the results can be uncertain, stressful, and most unsatisfactory for both the health professionals involved and the patient’s family. This combination of an unfortunate turn of events for the patient, sharing of bad news with family members, and the recommendation for care outside of the ICU is a juncture of decision making at which conflict can occur and ethical challenges are most apparent to members of the interdisciplinary team.8,9Much has been written about the difficulties in communication within the ICU and how this affects patient care. Considerable evidence indicates that communication between the ICU team, patients, and patients’ families can be inadequate, leading to conflict and a possible long-term effect on the patient’s family.6,8,10,11 In one study,8 46% of families who had a loved one die in the ICU reported conflict over decisions to withdraw or withhold life-support measures. These family members also reported conflict over the manner in which staff communicated with or behaved toward them. The authors of that study8 cited family members who felt pressured by staff to “hasten their loved one’s death because they placed a burden on valued resources.” The importance of communication between treatment teams and patients and patients’ families cannot be overstated. In addressing the difficulties and deficiencies that have been identified, 2 experts concluded, “communication with caregivers is consistently identified as the most important and least achieved factor in patient/family satisfaction surveys.”12Intensive care is primarily intended to provide maximum benefit to those patients who are likely to recover from their infirmity or trauma.13 When the interdisciplinary team is not clearly communicating ethical considerations as well as the criteria they are using to determine the effectiveness or success of the treatment plan, patients’ families may develop erroneous expectations that life-sustaining interventions will continue to be offered.6 At the same time as a loved one is receiving ICU care with a grim prognosis, families are struggling to come to terms with impending loss. Family functioning or experience in coping with loss,14 unrealistic expectations regarding health outcome, within a societal context of diverse religious or cultural beliefs, can markedly influence families’ decision making about end-of-life care. Such formidable contributing factors further emphasize that effective communication strategies, as well as an appropriate level of sensitivity, ought to be used in ICUs when dealing with patients’ families.11Team communication, in particular communication between disciplines, also has proven problematic in decisions about end-of-life care in the ICU. Critical care nurses have cited difficulties in communication and decision making within interdisciplinary ICU teams. Ferrand et al15 reported that 75% of the nursing staff who participated believed that “collaboration was inadequate during decision making” despite general agreement that such team collaboration is necessary and desired. In another study,16 about one-third of the ICU nurses who participated felt “excluded by physicians from patient care decisions and felt their exclusion to be a detriment to patient care.”In terms of the burdens carried in making decisions about end-of-life care, some evidence suggests that physicians and nurses experience equal burdens. Physicians experience the burdens associated with having to make these decisions, and nurses feel the burden of having to carry out care decisions made by someone else.17 Given the shared burdens that members of the interdisciplinary team face, as well as the reported difficulties in end-of-life care decision making in the ICU, ensuring effective communication is a key feature of high-quality patient care.7 The following discussion is intended to demonstrate how clinical ethicists can be supportive of such strategies for effective communication and decision making.Medical recommendations like those pertaining to the care of patients such as Mrs H are based on best-practice standards of care and are informed by ethical principles like beneficence, nonmaleficence, and autonomy. Continued life-sustaining support in situations where benefit is in question can be regarded as futile, a concept with inherent ethical challenges. As Weijer et al18 point out, the values inherent in medical futility arguments often confuse treatment considered ineffective and treatment that will be effective but will ultimately result in a controversial outcome such as permanent unconsciousness. A team’s decision to not readmit a patient for ICU care can be an attempt to address futility based on controversial outcomes that the team may perceive as causing more harm for the patient than good. Poignantly stated, “if the welfare of the patient is the whole purpose of providing treatment and if that treatment brings needless suffering, then the whole purpose of medicine is defeated.”19 Although the concept of futility in ICU care is a subject worthy of ethical debate, it will not be the focus of this discussion. Rather, the subject of this discussion is the role of clinical ethicists in helping decision makers address ethical considerations such as futility.The results of inadequate communication, misunderstandings, or disagreements arising from divergent views about what is beneficent and the institutional realities surrounding resource allocation can be seen in the moral distress and subsequent moral residue experienced by both the patient’s family members and the health care staff involved. Moral distress occurs when a person can identify the ethically appropriate course of action, but does not feel able to carry this action forward because of barriers that may include lack of resources, legal limits, institutional obstacles, or imbalances in power, for example. Effects of moral distress on an individual can include feelings of anger, frustration, anxiety, or depression.20 Moral residue can be encountered when “deeply held beliefs, values and principles” are set aside at the expense of one’s personal sense of integrity.21 For families of patients, moral residue can manifest in lifelong memories about difficult health care experiences.The experience of moral distress and moral residue are of particular importance to critical care nursing. Some evidence indicates a relationship between an ICU care nurse’s perception of providing futile care, inadequate communication about the care plan within the interdisciplinary team, and the incidence of moral distress, emotional exhaustion, and burnout.3,16,22 Cases like that of Mrs H can present these kinds of challenges to nurses providing care at the bedside. The discussion also highlights how clinical ethicists can assist interdisciplinary teams in addressing ethical challenges that can lead to moral distress.Finally, the ethical climate within our health care settings is shaped by the organizational values inherent in hospital policies, approaches to handling conflict, allocation of human and material resources, the daily-lived experience of staff providing care, and those to whom care is provided.23,24 Economic constraints, resource allocation difficulties, and staffing shortages contribute to the moral climate of health settings, the moral distress of staff, and burnout among health care providers.25,26In cases such as that of Mrs H, the ethical challenges are not just about treatment requests considered inadvisable but also about scarce resources like ventilator-equipped beds in ICU settings. In the minds of some families, the need for an ICU bed is the primary reason that palliative measures are now being recommended. When conflict surrounds decisions about level of care, it is the bedside ICU nurse who fields the questions, concerns, and emotions expressed by patients’ families.It is through such challenging decision making, in which no agreement is reached, that the moral climate is regrettably defined for all persons with a stake in the decision. However oppressive these disagreements feel to both health care professionals and patients’ family members, most often the disagreements, ironically, do not result from a lack of good intentions on either side of the debate. Rather, these circumstances reflect the complex ethical challenges that are inherent in contemporary health care settings. Clinical ethicists can be an important resource to health care teams, patients, and patients’ families in addressing these difficult challenges.Clinical ethicists who provide consultative services may be requested by the ICU team when conflicts such as the one surrounding the planning of Mrs H’s level of care arise. What are the characteristics, skills, and knowledge that make clinical ethicists a useful resource in helping to address conflict over decisions about level of care for stable but critically ill ICU patients?Clinical ethicists come from a diverse background of training: clinical and academic experiences that include but are not limited to medicine, nursing, social work, theology, philosophy, and anthropology. Most clinical ethicists have advanced academic degrees and/or training in clinical ethics. Despite this diversity in background, clinical ethicists engage in common functions: consultative services, research, education and the development of policies pertaining to patient care and organizational ethics.27–29Clinical ethicists are trained to view ethical problems within an interdisciplinary health care environment whose primary commitment should always be to provide the best patient care possible. Patient care and goals for care are best understood through the wishes, beliefs, and values of the patient and the patient’s family. The approach taken by clinical ethicists in providing consultation is to model interdisciplinary collaboration and effective communication with patients and their families, with the objective of enhancing ethical decision making.28–30In effect, clinical ethicists in cases such as the one involving Mrs H act as facilitators of communication and decision making about goals for care, while directing attention to the ethical considerations underlying such decisions. Generally, clinical ethicists can help clarify differences in the way ethical considerations such as sanctity or quality of life are valued on the basis of religious, personal, or cultural values. Some evidence suggests that ethics consultation generally has been useful in preventing or resolving conflicts, and in reducing the incidence of prolonged controversial treatment.31,32 Current trends in the training and education of clinical ethicists have emphasized skills, knowledge, and expertise better suited to provide ethics support in real time as dilemmas and conflict around decisions related to patient care unfold.28What is particularly important about the approach used by most clinical ethicists is the emphasis placed on fair and just processes for decisions of such importance and consequence in an ICU environment.In cases such as the one involving Mrs H, it is not just what decision ought to be made that is of interest to clinical ethicists, but if and why a particular decision is ethically defensible. If so, to whom is it ethically defensible? How ought discussions and conflicts be managed? These questions raise ethical concerns about justice, fairness, and a reasoned approach to decisions of such consequence. Ethical consideration must also be given to the moral climate, how people feel treated, and the concerns and opinions of key persons with a stake in the decision making, with overarching consideration given to trust in the process used to make such important decisions. Therefore clinical ethicists are as concerned with procedural fairness as they are with outcome when assisting with ethically challenging situations in health care settings.Principal aspects of procedural fairness are as follows: that the process for decision making be as transparent as possible to all involved; that concerns of key persons with a stake in the decision making be considered; that the reasons or rationale behind decisions can be understood and defended; that people responsible for decisions be held accountable; and that in the event disagreement occurs, decisions can be reviewed, taking into account the concerns of those who disagree.33 Process-driven approaches to decision making or to resolving conflict used by clinical ethicists are dependent on using frameworks to guide communication. Such frameworks for communication are not just ethically defensible; they have been shown empirically to be part of good practice standards in ICU settings.6,11,34 Lilly et al35(pS398) found that using a standardized framework for communication resulted in health care providers seeing decision making as a “process rather than as an event”—an attribute consistent with principles for ethical decision making.An example of such a framework to guide communication is described by Lautrette et al,34 who identify such attributes as timeliness, opportunities for the patient’s family to speak, use of appropriate and sensitive language, and ensuring that the setting is private and comfortable. In addition to these attributes, clinical ethicists would include discussion of the values in conflict and ethical obligations that underscore decision making.Frameworks for communication appear well supported in the literature anyway, so what makes the involvement of clinical ethicists of added benefit?Despite advances in implementing communication strategies in many settings, improvement in general is needed in managing communication, enhancing understanding, and meeting needs of ICU patients and their families.6,8,10,11 Furthermore, Sherwin36 believes that communication frameworks and hospital policies can be used coercively, to enforce a particular outcome, if those who lead these discussions or who adhere to policies are not reflecting on personal biases, institutional pressures, and ethical considerations.Clinical ethicists act as facilitators, helping to raise important ethical questions, model effective communication, and model ethical decision making by using teachable moments to heighten the awareness and understanding of the ethical considerations in each case. Within most health care settings, necessary and unavoidable imbalances in power are present between various persons who have a stake in the decision making. Clinical ethicists assist in discussing the values that underlie decisions of such importance, making these transparent to and understood by key involved parties. They model the principles of procedural fairness. Inherently challenging decisions about level of care, as in the case of Mrs H, are often met with challenging feelings and opinions, making fairness and ethical reflection more important than less to involved parties.Clinical ethicists advocate for policies and practices that reduce coercive consequences that can arise when members of the ICU treatment team, patients, or patients’ family members feel overruled or dismissed. In conducting an ethics consultation, the clinical ethicist leads discussions with the interdisciplinary team members about ethical considerations that contribute to moral distress, for example, the conflict in the way benefit and harm associated with a particular therapy or level of care are understood. In most instances, the clinical ethicist must ensure that concerns raised by members of the interdisciplinary team and concerns expressed by patients’ family members are shared and considered. This process is handled in an open and transparent manner. In creating an opportunity through the consultative process for the interdisciplinary team to address concerns, related to both areas of conflict and moral distress, clinical ethicists are also capitalizing on valuable teachable moments in which knowledge about ethics and decision making can be enhanced. As Kälvemark Sporrong et al37(p835) concluded, “Ethical competence is a key factor in preventing or reducing moral distress.”We have found that consultation on an individual case often helps treatment teams identify preventative strategies to reduce or avoid conflict and to engage in more timely discussion about ethics the next time a complex care situation arises. Such measures are necessary in creating a moral climate in which discussion about ethics in daily practice can be supported and thus reducing the effects or incidence of moral distress. The potential exists for all members of the interdisciplinary ICU team, including the most responsible physician, to be so engaged in ethical reflection and decision making on challenging cases. Clinical ethicists model skills of effective communication, ethical reflection, and decision making as well as principles of procedural fairness within the consultative process that they facilitate.We are not suggesting that effective communication, procedural fairness, ethical reflection, and decision making are deficient whenever clinical ethicists are not involved in such cases. In reality, complex and ethically challenging cases occur routinely in ICU settings, most often without the involvement of clinical ethicists. What is being proposed is that clinical ethicists should be seen as a valuable resource for addressing challenging cases in the ICU. Better understanding is needed about the role of clinical ethicists and the kinds of assistance they can provide.In most cases, the ICU team and patient’s family agree on recommendations that comfort measures be provided on a medical intermediate care unit or a palliative care unit for a stable but critically ill patient. However, as in the case of Mrs H, these decisions may be met with considerable emotion from the patient’s family and with differences of opinion about benefit and the appropriate level of care. We think that clinical ethicists can be a valuable resource when challenging cases arise. By providing consultation, clinical ethicists can model effective communication, ethical reflection, and decision making, while following principles of procedural fairness, all of which are key elements to upholding ethics in daily practice and are of particular importance when conflict occurs about level of care in the ICU.The following are practical considerations for critical care nurses:

Objective: Describe perceptions of persons with SCI on their receipt of holistic care and relational empathy during health care encounters.Design: Mailed survey.Participants/Setting: Individuals with SCI who received care from the largest suppliers of SCI care and rehabilitation (Veterans Health Administration and SCI Model Systems).Outcome Measures: Using a survey and administrative databases, we collected demographic and injury characteristics, health status, health conditions, and the main outcome: Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure.Results: The sample included 450 individuals with SCI (124 Veterans and 326 civilians). Response rate was 39% (450/1160). Analyses were conducted on patients with complete data (n = 389). Veterans and civilians with SCI differed across many demographic characteristics, age at injury, and etiology, but mean CARE scores were equivalent. Fewer than half of the full SCI cohort had CARE scores above the normative value of 43. Having a recent pressure ulcer showed a trend for lower odds of having a normative or higher CARE score. Odds of having an above-normative CARE score were nearly 2 times greater for individuals with tetraplegia, and odds were higher for those with higher physical and mental health status.Conclusions: Higher physical and mental health status and tetraplegia were each independently associated with greater perceptions of holistic care and empathy in the therapeutic patient-provider relationship. Limited empathy, communication, and holistic care may arise when providers focus on disease/disease management, rather than on patients as individuals. Frequent health care use and secondary conditions may affect empathy and holistic care in encounters, making it essential to understand and employ efforts to improve the therapeutic relationship between patients with SCI and their providers.

Postoperative Bedside Critical Care of Thoracic Surgery Patients.

BackgroundThe intensive care unit (ICU) is a nexus for interspecialty and interdisciplinary tensions because of its pivotal role in the care of the hospital's most critically ill patients and in the management of critical care resources. In an environment charged with temporal, financial and professional tensions, learning how to get results collaboratively is a critical aspect of professional competence. This study explored how team members in the ICU interact to achieve daily clinical goals, delineate professional boundaries and negotiate complex systems issues.MethodsSeven 1-hour focus groups were conducted with ICU team members in two hospitals. Participants consisted of four nursing groups (n = 27), two resident groups (n = 6) and one intensivist group (n = 4). Interviews were audio-recorded, anonymized and transcribed. With the use of a standard qualitative approach, transcripts were analyzed iteratively for recurrent themes by four researchers.ResultsTeam members articulated their perceptions of the mechanisms by which team collaboration was achieved or undermined in a complex and high-pressure context. Two mechanisms were recurrently described: the perception of 'ownership' and the process of 'trade'. Analysis of these mechanisms reveals how power is commodified, possessed and exchanged as team members negotiate their daily needs and goals with one another.ConclusionOur data provide a non-idealized depiction of how health care professionals function on a team so as to meet both individual and collective goals. We contend that the concept of 'team' must move beyond the rhetoric of 'cooperation' and towards a more authentic depiction of the skills and strategies required to function in the competitive setting of the interprofessional health care team.

Effective interprofessional team function is integral to high-quality care in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, little is known about how familiarity develops among teams, which may be an important antecedent to effective team function and quality care. To examine team familiarity and how it impacts ICU team function and care, we conducted an ethnographic study in four ICUs (two medical ICUs, one mixed medical-surgical ICU, and one surgical ICU) in two community hospitals and one academic medical center. We conducted 57.5 h of observation, 26 shadowing experiences, and 26 interviews across the four ICUs sequentially. We used thematic analysis to examine familiarity among the team. We found that ICU team members become familiar with their team through interpersonal, relational interactions, which involved communication, time working together, social interactions, trust, and respect. Our findings underscore the relational aspect of effective teams and demonstrate that time working together, social interactions, communication, developing trust, and respect are pathways to familiarity and optimal team function. Leveraging unique and creative ways to enhance the relational aspects of ICU teams could be an area for future research and lead to improved ICU outcomes.

BackgroundThe increase in non-communicable disease (NCD) is becoming a global health problem and there is an increasing need for primary care doctors to look after these patients although whether family doctors are adequately trained and prepared is unknown.ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine if doctors with family medicine (FM) training are associated with enhanced empathy in consultation and enablement for patients with chronic illness as compared to doctors with internal medicine training or without any postgraduate training in different clinic settings.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional questionnaire survey using the validated Chinese version of the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure as well as Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) for evaluation of quality and outcome of care. 14 doctors from hospital specialist clinics (7 with family medicine training, and 7 with internal medicine training) and 13 doctors from primary care clinics (7 with family medicine training, and 6 without specialist training) were recruited. In total, they consulted 823 patients with chronic illness. The CARE Measure and PEI scores were compared amongst doctors in these clinics with different training background: family medicine training, internal medicine training and those without specialist training. Generalized estimation equation (GEE) was used to account for cluster effects of patients nested with doctors.ResultsWithin similar clinic settings, FM trained doctors had higher CARE score than doctors with no FM training. In hospital clinics, the difference of the mean CARE score for doctors who had family medicine training (39.2, SD = 7.04) and internal medicine training (35.5, SD = 8.92) was statistically significant after adjusting for consultation time and gender of the patient. In the community care clinics, the mean CARE score for doctors with family medicine training and those without specialist training were 32.1 (SD = 7.95) and 29.2 (SD = 7.43) respectively, but the difference was not found to be significant. For PEI, patients receiving care from doctors in the hospital clinics scored significantly higher than those in the community clinics, but there was no significant difference in PEI between patients receiving care from doctors with different training backgrounds within similar clinic setting.ConclusionFamily medicine training was associated with higher patient perceived empathy for chronic illness patients in the hospital clinics. Patient enablement appeared to be associated with clinic settings but not doctors’ training background. Training in family medicine and a clinic environment that enables more patient doctor time might help in enhancing doctors’ empathy and enablement for chronic illness patients.

The Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure is a validated patient-rated measure of consultation quality in the UK. To provide preliminary evidence of the reliability and validity of a Chinese version of the CARE Measure in a primary care setting in Hong Kong. Following translation, back-translation and pilot testing, a Chinese version of the CARE Measure was developed and tested on 253 unselected primary care patients in Hong Kong. The Chinese-CARE Measure was regarded by patients as being relevant to their consultations, with on average only 5.5% of patients rating the items as not important (range 3.6-10.2% for individual items), suggesting high acceptability and face validity. This was also supported by the relatively low number of 'not applicable' responses recorded for the measure (average 8.2%, range 0.4-21.7% for individual items). Internal reliability was high (Cronbach's alpha 0.962) and was reduced by the removal of any of the 10 items, and homogeneity was indicated by high corrected item-total correlations (0.786-0.876). Factor analysis showed a single solution for the Chinese-CARE Measure items with high item loadings (0.821-0.891). Construct validity was further supported by significant hypothesized relationships with other variables (patient enablement and patient satisfaction). Consultation length and continuity of care were independent predictors of Chinese-CARE Measure score in stepwise multiple regression analysis but together explained <10% of variation in CARE score. These preliminary data support the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the CARE Measure in primary care in Hong Kong.

CONTEXT:Empathy is considered to be backbone of the patient–physician relationship. The consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure is widely used internationally to measure empathy. However, no validated tool is available to gather patient feedback on dentists’ empathy in India.OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to explore the reliability and validity of a CARE measure and to assess the factors influencing CARE score and to determine if there was an association between their CARE score and satisfaction of the patient.SETTING AND DESIGN:A cross-sectional study was done in dental colleges.SUBJECTS AND METHODS:A questionnaire study was carried out among 100 patients from 6 dental colleges in Bangalore using validated CARE measure.STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:Internal consistency of items was evaluated by the Cronbach's alpha, and construct validity was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis. Satisfaction was assessed by a question response on 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed with significance set at 5%.RESULTS:The mean CARE score was 43.80 ± 5.36. Internal reliability was high (Cronbach's alpha: 0.859) and was reduced by the removal of any of 10 items. High corrected item-total correlations ranged from 0.752 to 0.847. Factor analysis showed a single solution with high item loadings (>0.80). Self-perception of overall health (odds ratio [OR] = 3.78), relationship with family (OR = 4.61) and friends (OR = 3.78), and previous dental experience (OR = 16.00) were more likely, whereas dentist-provided treatment (OR = 0.20), number (OR = 0.07) and dental treatment taken (OR = 0.13), presence of anxiety (OR = 0.03), and fear (OR = 0.05) were less likely to have CARE score. The satisfaction of the patient regressed significantly with the relationship with family members (ß = 0.77) and CARE score (ß = 0.21).CONCLUSION:This study confirms the educational opportunity and implementation of CARE in dental students. CARE scores among patients varied depending on personal factors and dental treatment-related factors. The satisfaction of the patient was influenced by the relationship with family members and CARE scores.

BackgroundA growing body of evidence suggests that healthcare practitioners who enhance how they express empathy can improve patient health, and reduce medico-legal risk. However we do not know how consistently healthcare practitioners express adequate empathy. In this study, we addressed this gap by investigating patient rankings of practitioner empathy.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that asked patients to rate their practitioners’ empathy using the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure. CARE is emerging as the most common and best-validated patient rating of practitioner empathy. We searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cinahl, Science & Social Science Citation Indexes, the Cochrane Library and PubMed from database inception to March 2016. We excluded studies that did not use the CARE measure. Two reviewers independently screened titles and extracted data on average CARE scores, demographic data for patients and practitioners, and type of healthcare practitioners.ResultsSixty-four independent studies within 51 publications had sufficient data to pool. The average CARE score was 40.48 (95% CI, 39.24 to 41.72). This rank s in the bottom 5th percentile in comparison with scores collected by CARE developers. Longer consultations (n = 13) scored 15% higher (42.60, 95% CI 40.66 to 44.54) than shorter (n = 9) consultations (34.93, 95% CI 32.63 to 37.24). Studies with mostly (>50%) female practitioners (n = 6) showed 16% higher empathy scores (42.77, 95% CI 38.98 to 46.56) than those with mostly (>50%) male (n = 6) practitioners (34.84, 95% CI 30.98 to 38.71). There were statistically significant (P = 0.032) differences between types of providers (allied health professionals, medical students, physicians, and traditional Chinese doctors). Allied Health Professionals (n = 6) scored the highest (45.29, 95% CI 41.38 to 49.20), and physicians (n = 39) scored the lowest (39.68, 95% CI 38.29 to 41.08). Patients in Australia, the USA, and the UK reported highest empathy ratings (>43 average CARE), with lowest scores (<35 average CARE scores) in Hong Kong.ConclusionsPatient rankings of practitioner empathy are highly variable, with female practitioners expressing empathy to patients more effectively than male practitioners. The high variability of patient rating of practitioner empathy is likely to be associated with variable patient health outcomes. Limitations included frequent failure to report response rates introducing a risk of response bias. Future work is warranted to investigate ways to reduce the variability in practitioner empathy.

To examine the association between primary care practitioner (physician and nurse) empathy and incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and all-cause mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes. This was a population-based prospective cohort study of 49 general practices in East Anglia (United Kingdom). The study population included 867 individuals with screen-detected type 2 diabetes who were followed up for an average of 10 years until December 31, 2014 in the Anglo-Danish-Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment in People With Screen Detected Diabetes in Primary Care (ADDITION)-Cambridge trial. Twelve months after diagnosis, patients assessed practitioner empathy and their experiences of diabetes care during the preceding year using the consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure questionnaire. CARE scores were grouped into tertiles. The main outcome measures were first recorded CVD event (a composite of myocardial infarction, revascularization, nontraumatic amputation, stroke, and fatal CVD event) and all-cause mortality, obtained from electronic searches of the general practitioner record, national registries, and hospital records. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using Cox models adjusted for relevant confounders. The ADDITION-Cambridge trial is registered as ISRCTN86769081. Of the 628 participants with a completed CARE score, 120 (19%) experienced a CVD event, and 132 (21%) died during follow up. In the multivariable model, compared with the lowest tertile, higher empathy scores were associated with a lower risk of CVD events (although this did not achieve statistical significance) and a lower risk of all-cause mortality (HRs for the middle and highest tertiles, respectively: 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27-0.88, P = .01 and 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35-1.04, P = .05). Positive patient experiences of practitioner empathy in the year after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes may be associated with beneficial long-term clinical outcomes. Further work is needed to understand which aspects of patient perceptions of empathy might influence health outcomes and how to incorporate this understanding into the education and training of practitioners.

Empathy is an important attribute in medicine, influencing both the process and outcome of consultations. However, there are no validated tools available in Japan to gather patient feedback on physicians' empathy. The Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure developed in the UK is widely used internationally. To investigate the psychometric properties of a Japanese version of the CARE Measure. Following two cycles of translation and back translation, the Japanese CARE Measure was completed by 317 patients in a primary medical care clinic in Japan. Tests of internal reliability and validity included Cronbach's alpha, item-total correlations and factor analysis. Predicted associations between CARE Measure score and other variables were assessed by Spearman's rho. Low numbers of missing values (8.2-9.8%) and 'not applicable' responses (0-1.3%) suggested high acceptability and face validity of the Japanese CARE Measure. Internal reliability was high (Cronbach's alpha 0.984) and was reduced by the removal of any of 10 items. High corrected item-total correlations (0.897-0.946) suggested homogeneity. Factor analysis showed a single solution with high item loadings (0.917-0.957). Construct validity was supported by a significant relationship (Spearman's rho 0.74, P < 0.001) with overall satisfaction with the consultation. The Japanese CARE Measure appears to be valid and reliable in a primary medical care setting. Further work is required to determine its ability to discriminate between doctors.

Developing and Evaluating a Novel Educational Intensive Care Unit Wall Map

Psychiatric management of Patients in intensive care units.

The purpose of this study was to explore personal and organizational factors that contribute to burnout and moral distress in a Canadian academic intensive care unit (ICU) healthcare team. Both of these issues have a significant impact on healthcare providers, their families, and the quality of patient care. These themes will be used to design interventions to build team resilience. This is a qualitative study using focus groups to elicit a better understanding of stakeholder perspectives on burnout and moral distress in the ICU team environment. Thematic analysis of transcripts from focus groups with registered intensive care nurses (RNs), respiratory therapists (RTs), and physicians (MDs) considered causes of burnout and moral distress, its impact, coping strategies, as well as suggestions to build resilience. Six focus groups, each with four to eight participants, were conducted. A total of 35 participants (six MDs, 21 RNs, and eight RTs) represented 43% of the MDs, 18.8% of the RNs, and 20.0% of the RTs. Themes were concordant between the professions and included: 1) organizational issues, 2) exposure to high-intensity situations, and 3) poor team experiences. Participants reported negative impacts on emotional and physical well-being, family dynamics, and patient care. Suggestions to build resilience were categorized into the three main themes: organizational issues, exposure to high intensity situations, and poor team experiences. Intensive care unit team members described their experiences with moral distress and burnout, and suggested ways to build resilience in the workplace. Experiences and suggestions were similar between the interdisciplinary teams.

General practitioner empathy, patient enablement, and patient-reported outcomes in primary care in an area of high socio-economic deprivation in Scotland—A pilot prospective study using structural equation modeling