Medical residents reflect on their prejudices toward poverty: a photovoice training project.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians face challenges in delivering care to socioeconomically disadvantaged patients. While both the public and academic sectors recognize the importance of addressing social inequities in healthcare, there is room for improvement in the training of family physicians, who report being ill-equipped to provide care that is responsive to the living conditions of these patients. This study explored: (i) residents' perceptions and experience in relation to providing care for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, and (ii) how participating in a photovoice study helped them uncover and examine some of their prejudices and assumptions about poverty. METHODS: We conducted a participatory photovoice study. Participants were four family medicine residents, two medical supervisors, and two researchers. Residents attended six photovoice meetings at which they discussed photos they had taken. In collaboration with the researchers, the participants defined the research questions, took photos, and participated in data analysis and results dissemination. Meetings were recorded and transcribed for analysis, which consisted of coding, peer debriefing, thematic analysis, and interpretation. RESULTS: The medical residents uncovered and examined their own prejudices and misconceptions about poverty. They reported feeling unprepared to provide care to socioeconomically disadvantaged patients. Supported by medical supervisors and researchers, the residents underwent a three-phase reflexive process of: (1) engaging reflexively, (2) break(ing) through, and (3) taking action. The results indicated that medical residents subsequently felt encouraged to adopt a care approach that helped them overcome the social distance between themselves and their socioeconomically disadvantaged patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of providing medical training on issues related to poverty and increasing awareness about social inequalities in medical education to counteract prejudices toward socioeconomically disadvantaged patients. Future studies should examine which elective courses and training could provide suitable tools to clinicians to improve their competence in delivering care to socioeconomically disadvantaged patients.

[Screening for carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning by general practitioners in home visits]. / Dépistage des intoxications au monoxyde de carbone (CO) par des médecins généralistes effectuant des visites à domicile.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interest of carbon monoxide (CO) detector used by general practionners visiting patients at home. METHODS: CO detector (cost: 200 euros) was attributed to 300 general practionners visiting at least 20 patients at home per week. Alarm was triggered when ambient CO concentration exceeded 80ppm. Measurement of CO in expired breath was also possible. Activity and alarms were prospectively collected. Circumstances of intoxication were recorded. Evaluation was finally performed. The end-poind was to quantify CO-poisoning detected by the use of the device and the cost of this stratégy. RESULTS: From November 2001 to November 2004, 65 scenes of intoxication with 79 victims were prospectively reported by 12 general practionners. Final evaluation revealed that 23 physicians omitted to declare alarms. Alarm incidence was of 1 for 17.527 visits; with a related cost of approximately 858 euros for 24 months. Ambient carbon monoxide concentration exceeded 200ppm in 25% of cases. Hospital admission was required for 91% of the victims. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy was performed in two cases. General practionners (n=272) considered that CO detector was useful for safety reasons (91%), they wanted to continue the experience, but did not plan to buy such device (59%). DISCUSSION: Use of CO detectors by general practionners visiting patients at home allowed to identify 65 scenes of CO intoxication. In most cases, the cause of the visit did not suggested CO poisoning. The cost of the device seems to limits its large use. CONCLUSION: CO detector is a safety tool for both general prationners and patients. Its large use has to be questioned.