The association of types of training and practice settings with doctors’ empathy and patient enablement among patients with chronic illness in Hong Kong

Background: The 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. Objective: This 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. Methods: This 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. <b>Results</b> Within 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. Conclusion: Family 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

Using illness scripts to teach clinical reasoning skills to medical students

Background and Objectives: Most medical students learn clinical reasoning skills informally during clinical rotations that have varying quality of supervision. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine if a workshop that uses "illness scripts" could improve students' clinical reasoning skills when making diagnoses of patients portrayed in written scenarios. Methods: In 2007-2008, 53 fourth-year medical students were randomly assigned to either a family medicine (intervention) or psychiatry (control) clerkship at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Students in the intervention group participated in a 3-hour workshop on clinical reasoning that used illness scripts. The workshop was conducted with small-group teaching using a Web-based set of clinical reasoning problems, individualized feedback, and demonstration of tutors' reasoning aloud. The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed using the Diagnostic Thinking Inventory (DTI) and the measurement of individual students' performance in solving clinical reasoning problems (CRP). Results: The postintervention overall DTI scores between groups were similar (mean difference 0, 95% confidence interval [CI]= -7.4 to 7.4). However, the total scores on the CRP assessment were 14% (95% CI=8% to 21%) higher in the intervention group than in controls. Conclusion: A workshop on illness scripts may have some benefit for improving diagnostic performance in clinical reasoning problems