Patient preference in primary care provider type.

BACKGROUND: Given the growing roles of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), patients are increasingly able to choose their primary care provider type. Studies examining patient preferences among provider types are limited and ours is the first to examine reasons for patients' provider type preferences. METHODS: Using data from the 2014 Association of American Medical Colleges' (AAMC) Consumer Survey of Health Care Access, we used qualitative analysis to identify themes in open text responses of reasons for respondents' provider type preference (N = 4220). After coding responses for themes, we used chi-square tests to assess whether there were statistically significant differences in respondents' reasons for their provider preference, and whether reasons vary by the gender, race, or age of the respondent. RESULTS: Those preferring physicians were more likely to cite physician qualifications (75%) and trust (7%) than those preferring NP/PAs (qualifications = 36%; trust = 4%). Those preferring NP/PAs were more likely to cite bedside manner (20%) and convenience (9%) than those preferring physicians (bedside manner = 5%; convenience = 4%). Both groups of respondents were equally likely to mention previous experience with their provider type as a reason for their preference (prefer physician = 19%; prefer NP/PA = 21%). CONCLUSIONS: Provider qualifications and previous health care experiences are cited as key reasons for preferring all provider types. Additionally, physicians are more often preferred for their qualifications and technical skills, whereas NP/PAs are more often preferred for their interpersonal skills. IMPLICATIONS: Our results could help providers, health system administrators, workforce planners, and policy makers better understand patient perspectives and design care that enhances patient satisfaction.

A framework for revising preservice curriculum for nonphysician clinicians: The mozambique experience.

Mozambique, with approximately 0.4 physicians and 4.1 nurses per 10,000 people, has one of the lowest ratios of health care providers to population in the world. To rapidly scale up health care coverage, the Mozambique Ministry of Health has pushed for greater investment in training nonphysician clinicians, Tιcnicos de Medicina (TM). Based on identified gaps in TM clinical performance, the Ministry of Health requested technical assistance from the International Training and Education Center for Health (I-TECH) to revise the two-and-a-half-year preservice curriculum. A six-step process was used to revise the curriculum: (i) Conducting a task analysis, (ii) defining a new curriculum approach and selecting an integrated model of subject and competency-based education, (iii) revising and restructuring the 30-month course schedule to emphasize clinical skills, (iv) developing a detailed syllabus for each course, (v) developing content for each lesson, and (vi) evaluating implementation and integrating feedback for ongoing improvement. In May 2010, the Mozambique Minister of Health approved the revised curriculum, which is currently being implemented in 10 training institutions around the country. Key lessons learned: (i) Detailed assessment of training institutions' strengths and weaknesses should inform curriculum revision. (ii) Establishing a Technical Working Group with respected and motivated clinicians is key to promoting local buy-in and ownership. (iii) Providing ready-to-use didactic material helps to address some challenges commonly found in resource-limited settings. (iv) Comprehensive curriculum revision is an important first step toward improving the quality of training provided to health care providers in developing countries. Other aspects of implementation at training institutions and health care facilities must also be addressed to ensure that providers are adequately trained and equipped to provide quality health care services. This approach to curriculum revision and implementation teaches several key lessons, which may be applicable to preservice training programs in other less developed countries.

Teaching population health: a competency map approach to education.

A 2012 Institute of Medicine report is the latest in the growing number of calls to incorporate a population health approach in health professionals' training. Over the last decade, Duke University, particularly its Department of Community and Family Medicine, has been heavily involved with community partners in Durham, North Carolina, to improve the local community's health. On the basis of these initiatives, a group of interprofessional faculty began tackling the need to fill the curriculum gap to train future health professionals in public health practice, community engagement, critical thinking, and team skills to improve population health effectively in Durham and elsewhere. The Department of Community and Family Medicine has spent years in care delivery redesign and curriculum experimentation, design, and evaluation to distinguish the skills trainees and faculty need for population health improvement and to integrate them into educational programs. These clinical and educational experiences have led to a set of competencies that form an organizational framework for curricular planning and training. This framework delineates which learning objectives are appropriate and necessary for each learning level, from novice through expert, across multiple disciplines and domains. The resulting competency map has guided Duke's efforts to develop, implement, and assess training in population health for learners and faculty. In this article, the authors describe the competency map development process as well as examples of its application and evaluation at Duke and limitations to its use with the hope that other institutions will apply it in different settings.

Comparing oncologist, nurse, and physician assistant attitudes toward discussions of negative emotions with patients.

PURPOSE: Although research shows that empathic communication improves patient outcomes, physicians often fail to respond empathically to patients. Nurses and physician assistants (PAs) may be able to help fill the need for empathic communication. Our study compares the attitudes of oncologists, nurses, and PAs toward communication with patients who demonstrate negative emotions. METHODS: We analyzed surveys from 48 oncologists, 26 PAs, and 22 nurses who participated in the Studying Communication in Oncologist-Patient Encounters trial. Surveys included previously validated items that examined attitudes toward communication with patients about emotion. RESULTS: The mean age of oncology physicians was higher (49 years) than that of PAs (40 years) or nurses (43 years), and 19% of physicians, 81% of PAs, and 100% of nurses were female. Race, years of oncology experience, and previous communication training were similar across provider types. Most nurses (82%) and PAs (68%) described themselves as having a socioemotional orientation, while most oncologists (70%) reported a technological/scientific orientation (p < .0001). PAs and nurses indicated more comfort with psychosocial talk than did oncologists (p < .0001). Discomfort with disclosing uncertainty and provider confidence and expectations when addressing patient concerns were similar across provider types. CONCLUSIONS: PAs and nurses were more oriented toward socioemotional aspects of medicine and were more comfortable with psychosocial talk than were oncologists. Future studies should examine whether these differences are attributable to other factors, including gender, and whether nurses and PAs are more likely than physicians to demonstrate empathic behaviors when patients express negative emotions.