Physician resilience and perceived quality of care among medical doctors with training in psychosomatic medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: a quantitative and qualitative analysis

Abstract Background At an individual level, physician resilience protects against burnout and against its known negative effects on individual physicians, patient safety, and quality of care. However, it remains uncertain whether physician resilience also correlates with maintaining a high level of healthcare quality during crises such as a pandemic. This study aimed to investigate whether higher resilience among physicians, who had received training in resilience-related competences in the past, would be associated with higher quality of care delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods This study enrolled physicians working in family medicine, psychiatry, internal medicine, and other medical specialties, who had obtained at least one of three consecutive diplomas in psychosomatic medicine in the past. Participants completed a quantitative and qualitative anonymous online survey. Resilience was measured using the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, and healthcare quality was assessed through single-item quality indicators, including perceived quality of care, professional autonomy, adequate time for patient care, and job satisfaction. Results The study included 229 physicians (70 males/159 females) with additional training in psychosomatic medicine, working in family medicine (42.5%), psychiatry (28.1%), internal medicine (7.0%), or other medical specialties (22.4%). Participants represented four intensity levels of training background (level 1 to level 4: 9.2%, 32.3%, 46.3%, and 12.2% of participants). Training background in psychosomatic medicine was positively associated with resilience (B = 0.08, SE = 0.04, p <.05). Resilience and training background independently predicted perceived quality of care, even after controlling for variables such as own health concerns, involvement in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, financial strain, percentage of working hours spent on patient care, age, and gender (resilience: B = 0.33, SE = 0.12, p <.01; training background: B = 0.17, SE = 0.07, p <.05). Both resilience and training background predicted job satisfaction (resilience: B = 0.42, SE = 0.12, p <.001; training background: B = 0.18, SE = 0.07, p <.05), while resilience alone predicted professional autonomy (B = 0.27, SE = 0.12, p <.05). In response to an open question about their resources, resilient physicians more frequently reported applying conscious resilient skills/emotion regulation (p <.05) and personal coping strategies (p <.01) compared to less resilient medical doctors. Conclusion Physician resilience appears to play a significant role in the perceived quality of patient care, professional autonomy, and job satisfaction during healthcare crises

Biopsychosocial health care needs at the emergency room: challenge of complexity.

BACKGROUND: In an emergency room of internal medicine, triage and treatment of patients deserve first priority. However, biopsychosocial case complexity may also affect patient health outcome but has not yet been explored in this setting. Therefore, the aims of the study are (1) to estimate prevalence rates of complex patients in the emergency room (ER), (2) to describe biopsychosocial complexity in this population and (3) to evaluate possible correlations between patient profiles regarding case complexity and further clinical treatment. METHODS: During a study period of one week, all patients of an emergency room of internal medicine who were triaged to Manchester levels three to five were invited to participate in the study. Biopsychosocial case complexity was assessed by the INTERMED method. Psychosocial interventions were evaluated based on all documented interventions and recommendations given at the emergency room and during inpatient treatment. RESULTS: Study participants consisted of 167 patients with a subgroup of 19% (n = 32) receiving subsequent inpatient-treatment at the department. High biopsychosocial case complexity was found in 12% (n = 20) of the total sample (INTERMED score >20). This finding was paralleled by a cluster analysis suggesting three clusters with one highly complex patient group of 14%. These highly complex patients differed significantly from the other clusters as they had visited the emergency room more often within the last year and lived alone more frequently. In addition, admission rates were highest in this group. During ER treatment and subsequent inpatient treatment, 21% of highly complex patients received interventions addressing psychosocial factors as compared to 6% and 7%, respectively, in the other clusters. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized screening of biopsychosocial case complexity among 'frequent utilizers' of the ER would be helpful to detect specific multidisciplinary health care needs among this particularly burdened patient group

Psychosomatic medicine in primary care : influence of training

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) are often confronted with patients presenting somatic symptoms presumed to be decisively modulated by psychosocial factors. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to explore GPs' reported clinical routine in dealing with these patients according to the GPs' level of training in psychosomatic medicine. METHODS: A structured postal questionnaire survey was conducted among all Austrian GPs with a standardized training background in psychosomatic medicine (three levels of training; duration between one and six years) as well as in a random national sample of Austrian GPs without such training, resulting in four study subgroups. RESULTS: Respondents estimated that between 20% and 40% of their patients presenting somatic symptoms need psychosocial factors to be addressed. Study subgroups differed significantly concerning their reported diagnostic and therapeutic routine behavior patterns. Some diagnostic approaches such as clarification of lay etiology increased linearly with the level of training. The proportion of patients receiving corresponding treatment in the GP's own practice was also reported to increase with the level of training (no training: 35%, levels one and two: 46%, level three: 54%), although all subgroups estimated that over 20% of patients do not receive any corresponding treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Results point at the clinical relevance of a general training in psychosomatic medicine in primary care. They also suggest specific training effects that need to be substantiated in observational studies

ER-related data of the sample.

<p>ER-related data of the sample.</p

Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample.

<p>Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample.</p

Evaluation of ER discharge letters (n = 167).

<p>ER = Emergency Room, ECG = Electrocardiogram, MRT = magnetic resonance tomography, CT = computer tomography.</p>*<p>Documented recommendations refer to a subgroup of patients without admission after ER treatment.</p

Discriminating factors between INTERMED clusters.

*<p>p<0.05,</p>**<p>p<0.001.</p

Description of the three clusters of patients by INTERMED domain scores summing up to total scores.

<p>Description of the three clusters of patients by INTERMED domain scores summing up to total scores.</p

Inclusion process.

<p>Inclusion process.</p