Training in ethics and professionalism is a fundamental component of residency education, yet there is little empirical information to guide curricula. The objective of this study is to describe empirically derived ethics objectives for ethics and professionalism training for multiple specialties. Study design is a thematic analysis of documents, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups conducted in a setting of an academic medical center, Veterans Administration, and community hospital training more than 1000 residents. Participants were 84 informants in 13 specialties including (...) residents, program directors, faculty, practicing physicians, and ethics committees. Thematic analysis identified commonalities across informants and specialties. Resident and nonresident informants identified consent, interprofessional relationships, family interactions, communication skills, and end-of-life care as essential components of training. Nonresidents also emphasized formal ethics instruction, resource allocation, and self-monitoring, whereas residents emphasized the learning environment and resident-attending interactions. Conclusions are that empirically derived learning needs for ethics and professionalism included many topics, such as informed consent and resource allocation, relevant for most specialties, providing opportunities for shared curricula and resources. (shrink)
Though trust is essential to relationships between people, including that between patient and clinician, its role in organizational ethics is largely unexplored. Nonetheless, trust is also ideally a part of the relationship between patient and health care institution, both because it is desirable in and of itself, and because it makes for better medical care.
Health care and public health programs increasingly rely on, and often even require, organizational action, which is facilitated, if not dependent on, trust. Case examples in this essay highlight trust, trustworthiness, and distrust in public and private organizations, providing insights into how trust in health‐related organizations can be betrayed, earned, and justified and into the consequences of organizational trust and trustworthiness for the health of individuals and communities. These examples demonstrate the need for holistic assessments of trust in clinicians and (...) trust in organizations and for organizations, public health, and the medical profession to address questions concerning their own trustworthiness. Normative and empirical assessments of trust and trustworthiness that capture the experiences of those treated within the walls of a health care organization, as well as the care of those outside, will contribute to more trustworthy systems of care. (shrink)
usually brings to mind images of picket signs held by laborers striking for better wages and benefits. Collective action, however, need not be limited to the withholding of labor. Nor need it involve only the working or middle classes, as airline pilots have recently demonstrated. Finally, collective action need not have as its only purpose the self-interest of the group. Collective action does, however, always involve a joining together of individuals united by common goals or interests in order to consolidate (...) power for the purpose of negotiating with another group or entity. Examples of collective action obviously include striking, other withholding labor actions, and slowdowns, but can also include many other activities. for example, have been threatened or used by house officer organizations in the past. In a paper strike, patient care continues but without documentation, and thus, the institution suffers from absent or delayed financial remuneration. (shrink)
Those who advocate higher out-of-pocket spending, especially high deductibles, to keep health care costs better controlled without losing quality use market language to talk about how people should think about health care. Consumers—that is, patients—should hunt for bargains. Clip coupons. Shop around. Patients need to have more “skin in the game.” Consumer-patients will then choose more carefully and prudently and use less unnecessary health care. Unfailingly, “skin” refers to having money at stake. Usually, those arguing for high deductibles express dismay (...) or frustration that patients do not face the full cost of the health services they receive. Unfortunately, a lack of price transparency, the need to unbundle bundled groups of services to discover total price, and the challenge of validly and reliably measuring and disclosing quality make shopping for health care a challenge for even the savviest patient. Urgency, fear, and sickness that impairs peak cognitive function and other aspects of emotionally laden decision-making, even when “shared” with a physician, add obstacles to coupon clipping and tire kicking. Who has more at stake in health decisions than patients? Whose flesh is literally, not just figuratively, at risk? (shrink)