Associations of Physician Empathy with Patient Anxiety and Ratings of Communication in Hospital Admission Encounters

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between the frequency of empathic physician responses with patient anxiety, ratings of communication, and encounter length during hospital admission encounters. DESIGN: Analysis of coded audio-recorded hospital admission encounters and pre- and postencounter patient survey data. SETTING: Two academic hospitals. PATIENTS: Seventy-six patients admitted by 27 attending hospitalist physicians. MEASUREMENTS: Recordings were transcribed and analyzed by trained coders, who counted the number of empathic, neutral, and nonempathic verbal responses by hospitalists to their patients\u27 expressions of negative emotion. We developed multivariable linear regression models to test the association between the number of these responses and the change in patients\u27 State Anxiety Scale (STAI-S) score pre- and postencounter and encounter length. We used Poisson regression models to examine the association between empathic response frequency and patient ratings of the encounter. RESULTS: Each additional empathic response from a physician was associated with a 1.65-point decline in the STAI-S anxiety scale (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-2.82). Frequency of empathic responses was associated with improved patient ratings for covering points of interest, feeling listened to and cared about, and trusting the doctor. The number of empathic responses was not associated with encounter length (percent change in encounter length per response 1%; 95% CI, -8%-10%). CONCLUSIONS: Responding empathically when patients express negative emotion was associated with less patient anxiety and higher ratings of communication but not longer encounter length

Palliative Care Clinician Overestimation of Survival in Advanced Cancer: Disparities and Association With End-of-Life Care.

CONTEXT: Clinicians frequently overestimate survival time in serious illness. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to understand the frequency of overestimation in palliative care (PC) and the relation with end-of-life (EOL) treatment. METHODS: This is a multisite cohort study of 230 hospitalized patients with advanced cancer who consulted with PC between 2013 and 2016. We asked the consulting PC clinician to make their best guess about the patients\u27 most likely survival time, assuming that their illnesses are allowed to take their natural course (\u3c24 \u3ehours; 24 hours to less than two weeks; two weeks to less than three months; three months to less than six months; six months or longer). We followed patients for up to six month for mortality and EOL treatment utilization. Patients completed a brief interviewer-facilitated questionnaire at study enrollment. RESULTS: Median survival was 37 days (interquartile range: 12 days, 97 days) and 186/230 (81%) died during the follow-up period. Forty-one percent of clinicians\u27 predictions were accurate. Among inaccurate prognoses, 85% were overestimates. Among those who died, overestimates were substantially associated with less hospice use (OR CONCLUSION: Overestimation is common in PC, associated with lower hospice use and a potentially mutable source of racial/ethnic disparity in EOL care

Inpatient Understanding of Their Care Team and Receipt of Mixed Messages: a Two-Site Cross-Sectional Study

BackgroundPatient understanding of their care, supported by physician involvement and consistent communication, is key to positive health outcomes. However, patient and care team characteristics can hinder this understanding.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess inpatients' understanding of their care and their perceived receipt of mixed messages, as well as the associated patient, care team, and hospitalization characteristics.DesignWe administered a 30-item survey to inpatients between February 2020 and November 2021 and incorporated other hospitalization data from patients' health records.ParticipantsRandomly selected inpatients at two urban academic hospitals in the USA who were (1) admitted to general medicine services and (2) on or past the third day of their hospitalization.Main measuresOutcome measures include (1) knowledge of main doctor and (2) frequency of mixed messages. Potential predictors included mean notes per day, number of consultants involved in the patient's care, number of unit transfers, number of attending physicians, length of stay, age, sex, insurance type, and primary race.Key resultsA total of 172 patients participated in our survey. Most patients were unaware of their main doctor, an issue related to more daily interactions with care team members. Twenty-three percent of patients reported receiving mixed messages at least sometimes, most often between doctors on the primary team and consulting doctors. However, the likelihood of receiving mixed messages decreased with more daily interactions with care team members.ConclusionsPatients were often unaware of their main doctor, and almost a quarter perceived receiving mixed messages about their care. Future research should examine patients' understanding of different aspects of their care, and the nature of interactions that might improve clarity around who's in charge while simultaneously reducing the receipt of mixed messages

A multicenter study of key stakeholders' perspectives on communicating with surrogates about prognosis in intensive care units.

RationaleSurrogates of critically ill patients often have inaccurate expectations about prognosis. Yet there is little research on how intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians should discuss prognosis, and existing expert opinion-based recommendations give only general guidance that has not been validated with surrogate decision makers.ObjectiveTo determine the perspectives of key stakeholders regarding how prognostic information should be conveyed in critical illness.MethodsThis was a multicenter study at three academic medical centers in California, Pennsylvania, and Washington. One hundred eighteen key stakeholders completed in-depth semistructured interviews. Participants included 47 surrogates of adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome; 45 clinicians working in study ICUs, including physicians, nurses, social workers, and spiritual care providers; and 26 experts in health communication, decision science, ethics, family-centered care, geriatrics, healthcare disparities, palliative care, psychology, psychiatry, and critical care.Measurements and main resultsThere was broad support among surrogates for existing expert recommendations, including truthful prognostic disclosure, emotional support, tailoring the disclosure strategy to each family's needs, and checking for understanding. In addition, stakeholders offered suggestions that add specificity to existing recommendations, including: (1) In addition to conveying prognostic estimates, clinicians should help families "see the prognosis for themselves" by showing families radiographic images and explaining the clinical significance of physical manifestations of severe disease at the bedside. (2) Many physicians did not support using numeric estimates to convey prognosis to families, whereas many surrogates, clinicians from other disciplines, and experts believed numbers could be helpful. (3) Clinicians should conceptualize prognostic communication as an iterative process that begins with a preliminary mention of the possibility of death early in the ICU stay and becomes more detailed as the clinical situation develops. (4) Although prognostic information should be initially disclosed by physicians, other members of the multidisciplinary team-nurses, social workers, and spiritual care providers-should be given explicit role responsibilities to reinforce physicians' prognostications and help families process a poor prognosis emotionally.ConclusionsFamily members, clinicians, and experts identified specific communication behaviors that clinicians should use to discuss prognosis in the critical care setting. These findings extend existing opinion-based recommendations and should guide interventions to improve communication about prognosis in ICUs

A multicenter study of key stakeholders' perspectives on communicating with surrogates about prognosis in intensive care units.

RationaleSurrogates of critically ill patients often have inaccurate expectations about prognosis. Yet there is little research on how intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians should discuss prognosis, and existing expert opinion-based recommendations give only general guidance that has not been validated with surrogate decision makers.ObjectiveTo determine the perspectives of key stakeholders regarding how prognostic information should be conveyed in critical illness.MethodsThis was a multicenter study at three academic medical centers in California, Pennsylvania, and Washington. One hundred eighteen key stakeholders completed in-depth semistructured interviews. Participants included 47 surrogates of adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome; 45 clinicians working in study ICUs, including physicians, nurses, social workers, and spiritual care providers; and 26 experts in health communication, decision science, ethics, family-centered care, geriatrics, healthcare disparities, palliative care, psychology, psychiatry, and critical care.Measurements and main resultsThere was broad support among surrogates for existing expert recommendations, including truthful prognostic disclosure, emotional support, tailoring the disclosure strategy to each family's needs, and checking for understanding. In addition, stakeholders offered suggestions that add specificity to existing recommendations, including: (1) In addition to conveying prognostic estimates, clinicians should help families "see the prognosis for themselves" by showing families radiographic images and explaining the clinical significance of physical manifestations of severe disease at the bedside. (2) Many physicians did not support using numeric estimates to convey prognosis to families, whereas many surrogates, clinicians from other disciplines, and experts believed numbers could be helpful. (3) Clinicians should conceptualize prognostic communication as an iterative process that begins with a preliminary mention of the possibility of death early in the ICU stay and becomes more detailed as the clinical situation develops. (4) Although prognostic information should be initially disclosed by physicians, other members of the multidisciplinary team-nurses, social workers, and spiritual care providers-should be given explicit role responsibilities to reinforce physicians' prognostications and help families process a poor prognosis emotionally.ConclusionsFamily members, clinicians, and experts identified specific communication behaviors that clinicians should use to discuss prognosis in the critical care setting. These findings extend existing opinion-based recommendations and should guide interventions to improve communication about prognosis in ICUs

A Multicenter Study of Key Stakeholders’ Perspectives on Communicating with Surrogates about Prognosis in Intensive Care Units

Rationale: Surrogates of critically ill patients often have inaccurate expectations about prognosis. Yet there is little research on how intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians should discuss prognosis, and existing expert opinion–based recommendations give only general guidance that has not been validated with surrogate decision makers. Objective: To determine the perspectives of key stakeholders regarding how prognostic information should be conveyed in critical illness. Methods: This was a multicenter study at three academic medical centers in California, Pennsylvania, and Washington. One hundred eighteen key stakeholders completed in-depth semistructured interviews. Participants included 47 surrogates of adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome; 45 clinicians working in study ICUs, including physicians, nurses, social workers, and spiritual care providers; and 26 experts in health communication, decision science, ethics, family-centered care, geriatrics, healthcare disparities, palliative care, psychology, psychiatry, and critical care. Measurements and Main Results: There was broad support among surrogates for existing expert recommendations, including truthful prognostic disclosure, emotional support, tailoring the disclosure strategy to each family’s needs, and checking for understanding. In addition, stakeholders offered suggestions that add specificity to existing recommendations, including: (1) In addition to conveying prognostic estimates, clinicians should help families “see the prognosis for themselves” by showing families radiographic images and explaining the clinical significance of physical manifestations of severe disease at the bedside. (2) Many physicians did not support using numeric estimates to convey prognosis to families, whereas many surrogates, clinicians from other disciplines, and experts believed numbers could be helpful. (3) Clinicians should conceptualize prognostic communication as an iterative process that begins with a preliminary mention of the possibility of death early in the ICU stay and becomes more detailed as the clinical situation develops. (4) Although prognostic information should be initially disclosed by physicians, other members of the multidisciplinary team—nurses, social workers, and spiritual care providers—should be given explicit role responsibilities to reinforce physicians’ prognostications and help families process a poor prognosis emotionally. Conclusions: Family members, clinicians, and experts identified specific communication behaviors that clinicians should use to discuss prognosis in the critical care setting. These findings extend existing opinion-based recommendations and should guide interventions to improve communication about prognosis in ICUs

Seriously ill hospitalized patients’ perspectives on the benefits and harms of two models of hospital CPR discussions

OBJECTIVE: To describe seriously ill patients’ perspectives on expert-endorsed approaches for hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) discussions. METHODS: We created two videos depicting a hospital doctor discussing CPR with a seriously ill patient. One depicted a values-based approach with a doctor's recommendation, and one an information-focused approach without a recommendation. During semi-structured interviews, 20 seriously ill hospitalized patients viewed and commented on both videos. We conducted a thematic analysis to describe benefits and harms of specific discussion components. RESULTS: Half of participants reported no preference between the videos; 35% preferred the information-focused, and 15% the values-based. Participants’ reactions to the discussion components varied. They identified both benefits and harms with components in both videos,though most felt comfortable with all components (range, 60-65%) except for the doctor's recommendation in the values-based video. Only 40% would feel comfortable receiving a recommendation, while 65% would feel comfortable with the doctor eliciting their CPR preference as in the information-focused video, p=0.03. CONCLUSION: Participants’ reactions to expert-endorsed discussion components varied. Most would feel uncomfortable receiving a doctor's recommendation about CPR. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Participants’ varied reactions suggest the need to tailor CPR discussions to individual patients. Many patients may find doctor's recommendations to be problematic