Validation of a 5-item tool to measure patient assessment of clinician compassion in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: To test if the 5-item compassion measure (a tool previously validated in the outpatient setting to measure patient assessment of clinician compassion) is a valid and reliable tool to quantify a distinct construct (i.e. clinical compassion) among patients evaluated in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: Cross-sectional study conducted in three academic emergency departments in the U.S. between November 2018 and April 2019. We enrolled adult patients who were evaluated in the EDs of the participating institutions and administered the 5-item compassion measure after completion of care in the ED. Validity testing was performed using confirmatory factor analysis. Cronbach's alpha was used to test reliability. Convergent validity with patient assessment of overall satisfaction questions was tested using Spearman correlation coefficients and we tested if the 5-item compassion measure assessed a construct distinct from overall patient satisfaction using confirmatory factor analysis. RESULTS: We analyzed 866 patient responses. Confirmatory factor analysis found all five items loaded well on a single construct and our model was found to have good fit. Reliability was excellent (Cronbach's alpha = 0.93) among the entire cohort. These results remained consistent on sub-analyses stratified by individual institutions. The 5-item compassion measure had moderate correlation with overall patient satisfaction (r = 0.66) and patient recommendation of the ED to friends and family (r = 0.57), but reflected a patient experience domain (i.e. compassionate care) distinctly different from patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: The 5-item compassion measure is a valid and reliable tool to measure patient assessment of clinical compassion in the ED.

Filling the void: a low-cost, high-yield approach to addressing incidental findings in trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Incidental findings are prevalent in imaging but often go unreported to patients. Such unreported findings may present the potential for harm as well as medico-legal ramifications. METHODS: A chart review of trauma patients was undertaken over a year. Systems-based changes were made utilizing our electronic medical record system and our staff protocols to improve the disclosure of clinically relevant incidental findings to patients. RESULTS: During the preintervention period, 674 charts were reviewed. Trauma patients had a rate of incidental findings of 70%, and 36% of patients had clinically relevant incidentals. Rates of follow-up recommendation and disclosure to patients were 22% and 27%, respectively. In the postintervention period, of the 648 charts were reviewed, the rates of a clinically relevant incidental finding were 35%, but the rates of follow-up recommendation and disclosure to patients were 68% and 85%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Incidental findings are more prevalent herein than previously reported. With simple changes and minimal resources, clinically relevant and important improvement in reporting incidental findings can be made to mitigate the harm and medico-legal impact of an incidental finding going unreported.