Is physician implicit bias associated with differences in care by patient race for metastatic cancer-related pain?

RATIONALE: Implicit racial bias affects many human interactions including patient-physician encounters. Its impact, however, varies between studies. We assessed the effects of physician implicit, racial bias on their management of cancer-related pain using a randomized field experiment. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of a randomized field experiment between 2012 and 2016 with 96 primary care physicians and oncologists using unannounced, Black and White standardized patients (SPs)who reported uncontrolled bone pain from metastatic lung cancer. We assessed implicit bias using a pain-adaptation of the race Implicit Association Test. We assessed clinical care by reviewing medical records and prescriptions, and we assessed communication from coded transcripts and covert audiotapes of the unannounced standardized patient office visits. We assessed effects of interactions of physicians' implicit bias and SP race with clinical care and communication outcomes. We conducted a slopes analysis to examine the nature of significant interactions. RESULTS: As hypothesized, physicians with greater implicit bias provided lower quality care to Black SPs, including fewer renewals for an indicated opioid prescription and less patient-centered pain communication, but similar routine pain assessment. In contrast to our other hypotheses, physician implicit bias did not interact with SP race for prognostic communication or verbal dominance. Analysis of the slopes for the cross-over interactions showed that greater physician bias was manifested by more frequent opioid prescribing and greater discussion of pain for White SPs and slightly less frequent prescribing and pain talk for Black SPs with the opposite effect among physicians with lower implicit bias. Findings are limited by use of an unvalidated, pain-adapted IAT. CONCLUSION: Using SP methodology, physicians' implicit bias was associated with clinically meaningful, racial differences in management of uncontrolled pain related to metastatic lung cancer. There is favorable treatment of White or Black SPs, depending on the level of implicit bias.

Do Polish primary care physicians meet the expectations of their patients? An analysis of Polish QUALICOPC data.

BACKGROUND: Meeting the expectations of patients is one of the most crucial criteria when assessing the quality of a healthcare system. This study aimed to compare the expectations and experiences of patients of primary care in Poland and to identify key patient characteristics affecting these outlooks. METHODS: The study was performed within the framework of the international Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study. In Poland, a nationally representative sample of 2218 patients were recruited to take part in the study. As a study tool, we used data from two of four QUALICOPC questionnaires: "Patient Experience" and "Patient Values". RESULTS: Patients' expectations were fulfilled in all study areas: accessibility, continuity, quality of care, and equity. We observed that the highest-met expectations indexes were in the area of quality of care, while the lowest, but still with a positive value, were in the area of accessibility. Patient-doctor communication was the aspect most valued by study participants. Elements of the patient's own level of engagement during the consultation were ranked as less essential. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing patient experiences to their values allows us to identify areas for improvement that are prioritized by patients. Accessibility is recognized as the most important area by Polish patients, simultaneously showing the highest level of patient-perceived improvement potential. Interpersonal care is another domain, in which the needs of patients are satisfied but are also relatively high. Strong clinician-patient relationships seem to be a priority in patients' expectations. The continuous efforts in interpersonal communication skills training for primary care physicians should be upgraded.

Virginity testing: recommendations for primary care physicians in Europe and North America.

Virginity testing is a complex, culturally mediated practice that is poorly understood by Western clinicians. While advocating for global elimination of the practice of virginity testing as a human rights violation, clinical practice is often more complicated and ethically nuanced, and the clinician must act in the best interest of her patient. Upholding human rights does not have to be incompatible with providing a needed service to a patient, which should never include an invasive exam if not medically necessary, but should include education and safety assessments.

Moral Controversy and Working with Colleagues with a Shared Ethical/Moral Outlook: A National Survey of US Primary Care Physicians.

OBJECTIVES: This study assesses physicians' attitudes on the importance of working with colleagues who share the same ethical or moral outlook regarding morally controversial healthcare practices and examines the association of physicians' religious and spiritual characteristics with these attitudes. METHODS: We conducted a secondary data analysis of a 2009 national survey that was administered to a stratified random sample of 1504 US primary care physicians (PCPs). In that dataset, physicians were asked: "For you personally, how important is it to work with colleagues who share your ethical/moral outlook regarding morally controversial health care practices?" We examined associations between physicians' religious/spiritual characteristics and their attitudes toward having a shared ethical/moral outlook with colleagues. RESULTS: Among eligible respondents, the response rate was 63% (896/1427). Overall, 69% of PCPs indicated that working with colleagues who share their ethical/moral outlook regarding morally controversial healthcare practices was either very important (23%) or somewhat important (46%). Physicians who were more religious were more likely than nonreligious physicians to report that a shared ethical/moral outlook was somewhat/very important to them (P < 0.001 for all measures of religiosity, including religious affiliation, attendance at religious services, intrinsic religiosity, and importance of religion as well as spirituality). Physicians with a high sense of calling were more likely than those with a low sense of calling to report a high importance of having a shared ethical/moral outlook with colleagues regarding morally controversial healthcare practices (multivariate odds ratio 2.5, 95% confidence interval 1.5-4.1). CONCLUSIONS: In this national study of PCPs, physicians who identified as religious, spiritual, or having a high sense of calling were found to place a stronger emphasis on the importance of shared ethical/moral outlook with work colleagues regarding morally controversial healthcare practices. Moral controversy in health care may pose a particular challenge for physicians with lower commitments to theological pluralism.

"Primary care is primary care": Use of Normalization Process Theory to explore the implementation of primary care services for transgender individuals in Ontario.

BACKGROUND: In Ontario, Canada, healthcare for transgender individuals is accessed through primary care; however, there are a limited number of practitioners providing transgender care, and patients are often on waiting lists and/or traveling great distances to receive care. Understanding how primary care is implemented and delivered to transgender individuals is key to improving access and eliminating healthcare barriers. The purpose of this study is to understand how the implementation of primary care services for transgender individuals compares across various models of primary care delivery in Ontario. METHODS: A qualitative, exploratory, multiple-case study guided by Normalization Process Theory (NPT) was used to compare transgender care delivery and implementation across three primary care models. Three cases known to provide transgender primary care and represent different primary care models in Ontario, Canada (i.e., family health team, community health centre, fee-for service physician) were explored. The NoMAD survey, a tool to measure implementation processes, and qualitative interviews with primary care practitioners and allied healthcare staff were administered. RESULTS: Using the NPT framework to guide analysis, key themes emerged about successful implementation of primary care services for transgender individuals. These themes include creating a safe space for patients, identifying gaps in services, understanding practitioners' roles, and the need for more training and education in transgender care for practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care services for transgender individuals can and should be delivered in all models of primary care. Training and awareness for healthcare practitioners are needed to develop capacity in providing primary care to transgender individuals. A greater number of practitioners and organizations are needed to take on this work, embedding and normalizing transgender care into routine practice to address barriers to access and improve quality of care for transgender individuals.

How Should Primary Care Physicians Respond to Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Test Results?

In this case, a primary care physician is presented with direct-to-consumer genetic test results and asked to provide counseling and order follow-up diagnostics. In order to deal effectively with this situation, we suggest physicians need look no further than the practice principles that guide more routine clinical encounters. We examine the rationale behind 2 major clinical ethical considerations: (1) physicians have obligations to help their patients achieve reasonable health goals but are not obligated to perform procedures that are not medically indicated; and (2) primary care physicians do not need to know everything; they just need to know how to get their patients appropriate care.

Prevalence of Inappropriate Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care Clinics within a Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

Data are needed from outpatient settings to better inform antimicrobial stewardship. In this study, a random sample of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions by primary care providers (PCPs) at our health care system was reviewed and compared to consensus guidelines. Over 12 months, 3,880 acute antibiotic prescriptions were written by 76 PCPs caring for 40,734 patients (median panel, 600 patients; range, 33 to 1,547). PCPs ordered a median of 84 antibiotic prescriptions per 1,000 patients per year. Azithromycin (25.8%), amoxicillin-clavulanate (13.3%), doxycycline (12.4%), amoxicillin (11%), fluoroquinolones (11%), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (10.6%) were prescribed most commonly. Medical records corresponding to 300 prescriptions from 59 PCPs were analyzed in depth. The most common indications for these prescriptions were acute respiratory tract infection (28.3%), urinary tract infection (23%), skin and soft tissue infection (15.7%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation (6.3%). In 5.7% of cases, no reason for the prescription was listed. No antibiotic was indicated in 49.7% of cases. In 12.3% of cases, an antibiotic was indicated, but the prescribed agent was guideline discordant. In another 14% of cases, a guideline-concordant antibiotic was given for a guideline-discordant duration. Therefore, 76% of reviewed prescriptions were inappropriate. Ciprofloxacin and azithromycin were most likely to be prescribed inappropriately. A non-face-to-face encounter prompted 34% of prescriptions. The condition for which an antibiotic was prescribed was not listed in primary or secondary diagnosis codes in 54.5% of clinic visits. In conclusion, there is an enormous opportunity to reduce inappropriate outpatient antibiotic prescriptions.

Stigmatizing attitudes of primary care professionals towards people with mental disorders: A systematic review.

Objective To examine stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental disorders among primary care professionals and to identify potential factors related to stigmatizing attitudes through a systematic review. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, Lilacs, IBECS, Index Psicologia, CUMED, MedCarib, Sec. Est. Saúde SP, WHOLIS, Hanseníase, LIS-Localizador de Informação em Saúde, PAHO, CVSO-Regional, and Latindex, through the Virtual Health Library portal ( http://www.bireme.br website) through to June 2017. The articles included in the review were summarized through a narrative synthesis. Results After applying eligibility criteria, 11 articles, out of 19.109 references identified, were included in the review. Primary care physicians do present stigmatizing attitudes towards patients with mental disorders and show more negative attitudes towards patients with schizophrenia than towards those with depression. Older and more experience doctors have more stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental illness compared with younger and less-experienced doctors. Health-care providers who endorse more stigmatizing attitudes towards mental illness were likely to be more pessimistic about the patient's adherence to treatment. Conclusions Stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental disorders are common among physicians in primary care settings, particularly among older and more experienced doctors. Stigmatizing attitudes can act as an important barrier for patients to receive the treatment they need. The primary care physicians feel they need better preparation, training, and information to deal with and to treat mental illness, such as a user friendly and pragmatic classification system that addresses the high prevalence of mental disorders in primary care and community settings.

Primary care physicians' views about gatekeeping in clinical research recruitment: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical research is increasingly being undertaken in primary care settings. This development offers both benefits and challenges. The ethical challenges of occupying the roles of both clinician and researcher may be accentuated in primary care settings, where relationships are longer lasting and medical conditions are less acute. This article examines primary care physicians' experiences of undertaking research, particularly their decision making about recruiting patients in the context of their own dual roles. METHODS: This project comprised in-depth interviews with eight Australian primary care physicians working in general or specialist practices that were involved in clinical research. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Physicians involved in recruiting their patients into clinical trials acted as gatekeepers; they were selective about which patients to recruit and did not necessarily approach all patients who met the research eligibility criteria. Physicians' accounts suggested they prioritized their clinician role over their researcher role. In addition to the rigor and merit of the research, physicians considered the possible benefit of trial participation for individual patients. Physicians described making recruitment decisions based on their perceived knowledge of patients' personal, behavioral, and attitudinal characteristics-often derived from their long-standing relationships with their patients. CONCLUSION: Our data show evidence of gatekeeping by primary care physicians when deciding to participate in, and recruit their patients to, clinical studies. We argue that such gatekeeping is a way of addressing the dual and sometimes conflicting roles of clinician and researcher. It need not be ethically problematic, but primary care physicians should be reflexive about their recruitment practices and biases. In addition, this form of gatekeeping should be explicitly recognized in protocol design and the analysis of trial findings.

When are primary care physicians untruthful with patients? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Notwithstanding near-universal agreement on the theoretical importance of truthfulness, empirical research has documented gaps between ethical norms and physician behaviors. Although prior research has explored situations in which physicians may not be truthful with patients, it has focused on contexts within specialty practice. In this article, we report on a qualitative study of truthfulness in primary care. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study during December 2014-March 2015 involving both focus groups and in-depth, semistructured interviews with 32 primary care physicians from the Boston, MA, and Baltimore, MD, metro areas in three specialties: internal medicine, family practice, and pediatrics. Interviews and focus groups were led using a semistructured guide, which explored situations in which primary care physicians find it difficult to be honest with patients; factors shaping truthfulness; and rationales for truthful and untruthful communication. RESULTS: While physicians described outright lying to patients as rare, other deviations from truthfulness were not uncommon, including slanting and deliberately withholding information. Physicians described a range of factors as influencing truthfulness, from patient-level characteristics such as educational background to societal considerations including avoiding unnecessary tests and procedures. Physicians described truthfulness as an ethical requirement, deviations from which required further justification. Perceived justifications included promoting patient well-being and avoiding harm. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a potential need to augment opportunities for training in "everyday ethics" challenges, such as the appropriateness of deception in response to patient requests for inappropriate tests or pain medications. Furthermore, they indicate that, in various circumstances encountered in primary care, physicians perceive other moral duties as potentially in conflict with the duty of truthfulness. Further ethical analysis should focus on identifying when deviations from complete truthfulness do and do not serve patients' interests, to guide physicians in striking a reasonable balance among principles of medical ethics that may conflict with one another.

Understanding and responding when things go wrong: key principles for primary care educators.

Learning from events with unwanted outcomes is an important part of workplace based education and providing evidence for medical appraisal and revalidation. It has been suggested that adopting a 'systems approach' could enhance learning and effective change. We believe the following key principles should be understood by all healthcare staff, especially those with a role in developing and delivering educational content for safety and improvement in primary care. When things go wrong, professional accountability involves accepting there has been a problem, apologising if necessary and committing to learn and change. This is easier in a 'Just Culture' where wilful disregard of safe practice is not tolerated but where decisions commensurate with training and experience do not result in blame and punishment. People usually attempt to achieve successful outcomes, but when things go wrong the contribution of hindsight and attribution bias as well as a lack of understanding of conditions and available information (local rationality) can lead to inappropriately blame 'human error'. System complexity makes reduction into component parts difficult; thus attempting to 'find-and-fix' malfunctioning components may not always be a valid approach. Finally, performance variability by staff is often needed to meet demands or cope with resource constraints. We believe understanding these core principles is a necessary precursor to adopting a 'systems approach' that can increase learning and reduce the damaging effects on morale when 'human error' is blamed. This may result in 'human error' becoming the starting point of an investigation and not the endpoint.

US primary care physicians' opinions about conscientious refusal: a national vignette experiment.

OBJECTIVE: Previous research has found that physicians are divided on whether they are obligated to provide a treatment to which they object and whether they should refer patients in such cases. The present study compares several possible scenarios in which a physician objects to a treatment that a patient requests, in order to better characterise physicians' beliefs about what responses are appropriate. DESIGN: We surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1504 US primary care physicians using an experimentally manipulated vignette in which a patient requests a clinical intervention to which the patient's physician objects. We used multivariate logistic regression models to determine how vignette and respondent characteristics affected respondent's judgements. RESULTS: Among eligible respondents, the response rate was 63% (896/1427). When faced with an objection to providing treatment, referring the patient was the action judged most appropriate (57% indicated it was appropriate), while few physicians thought it appropriate to provide treatment despite one's objection (15%). The most religious physicians were more likely than the least religious physicians to support refusing to accommodate the patient's request (38% vs 22%, OR=1.75; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.86). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that US physicians believe it is inappropriate to provide an intervention that violates one's personal or professional standards. Referring seems to be physicians' preferred way of responding to requests for interventions to which physicians object.

Sharing Physician Notes Through an Electronic Portal is Associated With Improved Medication Adherence: Quasi-Experimental Study.

BACKGROUND: In surveys, interviews, and focus groups, patients taking medications and offered Web portal access to their primary care physicians' (PCPs) notes report improved adherence to their regimens. However, objective confirmation has yet to be reported. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between patient Internet portal access to primary care physician visit notes and medication adherence. METHODS: This study is a retrospective comparative analysis at one site of the OpenNotes quasi-experimental trial. The setting includes primary care practices at the Geisinger Health System (GHS) in Danville, Pennsylvania. Participants include patients 18 years of age or older with electronic portal access, GHS primary care physicians, and Geisinger health plan insurance, and taking at least one antihypertensive or antihyperlipidemic agent from March 2009 to June 2011. Starting in March 2010, intervention patients were invited and reminded to read their PCPs' notes. Control patients also had Web portal access throughout, but their PCPs' notes were not available. From prescription claims, adherence was assessed by using the proportion of days covered (PDC). Patients with a PDC ≥.80 were considered adherent and were compared across groups using generalized linear models. RESULTS: A total of 2147 patients (756 intervention participants, 35.21%; 1391 controls, 64.79%) were included in the analysis. Compared to those without access, patients invited to review notes were more adherent to antihypertensive medications-adherence rate 79.7% for intervention versus 75.3% for control group; adjusted risk ratio, 1.06 (95% CI 1.00-1.12). Adherence was similar among patient groups taking antihyperlipidemic agents-adherence rate 77.6% for intervention versus 77.3% for control group; adjusted risk ratio, 1.01 (95% CI 0.95-1.07). CONCLUSIONS: Availability of notes following PCP visits was associated with improved adherence by patients prescribed antihypertensive, but not antihyperlipidemic, medications. As the use of fully transparent records spreads, patients invited to read their clinicians' notes may modify their behaviors in clinically valuable ways.

To self-disclose or not self-disclose? A systematic review of clinical self-disclosure in primary care.

BACKGROUND: There is a debate in medicine about the value of self-disclosure by the physician as a communication tool. AIM: To review the empirical literature of self-disclosure in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of empirical literature relating to self-disclosure by primary care physicians (including US paediatricians) from seven electronic databases (MEDLINE(®), Scopus, PsycINFO, Embase, Social Sciences Citation Index, EBSCOhost, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]). METHOD: Databases were searched for empirical studies on self-disclosure and primary care published from 1946 to 28 November 2014, as well as references from primary studies. The search was extended to include working papers, theses, and dissertations. RESULTS: Nine studies were identified, with response rates ranging from 34% to 100%, as well as several not reported. Self-disclosure occurred in 14-75% of consultations, the most from paediatricians. Self-disclosure had intended benefit; however, one standardised patient study found that 85% of self-disclosures were not useful as reported by the transcript coders. Conflicting data emerged on the self-disclosure outcome. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review of self-disclosure in primary care and medicine. Self-disclosure appears to be common and has the potential to be helpful when used judiciously. Few studies examined the impact on patients, and no studies considered the individual patient perspective nor the content which results in benefit or harm. No evidence was found of any training into how to deal with self-disclosure.

Evaluación de la calidad en cuidados médicos prestados a pacientes diabéticos: un ciclo de mejora / Primary care for diabetic patients: A quality improvement cycle

Objetivo: Evaluar y mejorar la calidad de los cuidados médicos prestados a pacientes diabéticos a través de los estándares propuestos por la Asociación Americana de Diabetes. Material y métodos: El estudio se realizó en 3 fases, sobre una población diana de 2.795 pacientes diabéticos, analizando los registros en la historia clínica informatizada de una muestra de 340 individuos. Primera fase (año 2010): estudio transversal, descriptivo, donde se evaluó el cumplimiento de estándares relacionados con el cribado, metas de control y tratamiento de la diabetes. En la segunda realizamos una intervención basada en sesiones grupales sobre los profesionales sanitarios. Finalmente evaluamos el cumplimiento de los mismos estándares, durante la asistencia prestada en 2012. Resultados: El porcentaje de diabéticos tipo 2 tratados con insulina se incrementó desde el 12,7% en 2010 al 20,2% en 2012 (p < 0,01). También aumentó el porcentaje de pacientes en los que se cumplió el cribado relacionado con determinaciones analíticas: hemoglobina glucosilada (del 44,4% al 68,2%), perfil lipídico (del 47,6% al 73,8%), creatinina (del 32,5% al 73,5%) y cociente albúmina-creatinina (del 9,2% al 24,4%) (p < 0,001). El 4,2% (IC: 0,9%-7,1%) de los diabéticos alcanzaron, a la vez, las metas recomendadas de hemoglobina glucosilada, tensión arterial y lipoproteínas de baja densidad en 2010, mientras que en el año 2012 fueron el 6,4% (IC: 3,2%-9,8%). Conclusiones: Mejoramos el cribado de parámetros analíticos, insulinizamos más a los pacientes con diabetes tipo 2, pero conseguimos un pobre control de enfermedades, asociadas a la diabetes, que suponen importantes factores de riesgo cardiovascular (AU)

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate and improve the quality of medical care provided to diabetic patients following the standards proposed by the American Diabetes Association. Material and methods. The study was conducted in three phases by analyzing data from the computerized clinical history of a sample of 340 patients. First phase (2010): cross-sectional, descriptive study which assessed the proportion of patients who met the standards related to the screening of diabetes, and goals of control and treatment. Subsequently, health professionals reviewed the results in order to promote the implementation of corrective action. Finally (2012), a new assessment with the same standards was performed. Results: An increase in the number of patients treated with insulin (12.7% in 2010 and 20.2% in 2012) was observed (P < .01). There were also percentage increases in the number of patients who met the screening standards as regards analytical determinations: glycosylated hemoglobin (from 44.4% to 68.2%), lipid profile (47.6%-73.8%), creatinine (32.5% - 73.5%), and albumin-creatinine ratio (9.2%-24.4%) (P < .001). Only 6.4% (CI: 3.2- 9.8) of diabetic patients attained the composite target of glycosylated hemoglobin < 7%, blood pressure < 130/80 mm Hg and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol < 100 mg/dl in 2012. Conclusions: This study shows that medical care has improved the goals related to analytical determinations and the number of insulin-treated diabetic type 2 patients. An optimal level was also maintained in metabolic control of diabetes, but there was still poor control of risk factors for cardiovascular disease (AU)

Medical genetic counseling for breast cancer in primary care: a synthesis of major determinants of physicians' practices in primary care settings.

OBJECTIVES: This paper aims to identify relevant potential predictors of medical genetic counseling for breast cancer (MGC-BC) in primary care and to develop a comprehensive questionnaire to study MGC-BC. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to identify the predictors of MGC-BC among primary care physicians. Relevant articles were identified in selected databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL) and 4 selected relevant electronic journals. RESULTS: An inductive analysis of the 193 quantitatively tested variables, conducted by 3 researchers, showed that 6 conceptual categories of determinants, namely (1) demographic, (2) organizational, (3) experiential, (4) professional, (5) psychological, and (6) cognitive, influence MGC-BC practices. CONCLUSION: There is a scarcity of literature addressing the medical behavior determinants of MGC-BC. Future research is needed to identify effective strategies put into action to support the integration of MGC-BC in primary care medical practices and routines. However, our results shed light on 2 levels of actions that could improve genetic counseling services in primary care: (1) medical training and educational efforts emphasizing family history collection (individual level), and (2) clarification of roles and responsibilities in ordering and referral practices in genetic counseling and genetic testing for better healthcare management (organizational level).