Simulating empathy: A qualitative experiential study of embedded resident learners in an empathy curriculum

IF 1.7 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Anna Culhane MD, Jerome Martin MD, Zachary Huston, Sara M. Hock MD
{"title":"Simulating empathy: A qualitative experiential study of embedded resident learners in an empathy curriculum","authors":"Anna Culhane MD,&nbsp;Jerome Martin MD,&nbsp;Zachary Huston,&nbsp;Sara M. Hock MD","doi":"10.1002/aet2.10957","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Physician empathy and communication skills are crucial parts of a successful emergency department (ED) interaction. This study aimed to evaluate whether these skills can be improved through a novel curriculum where interns act as patients for their senior residents during simulated ED cases.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Twenty-five residents participated in the curriculum. Prior to the cases, participants filled out the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ). They then completed three simulated cases, with the 11 interns portraying the patients and the 14 seniors (postgraduate year [PGY]-2 and PGY-3 residents) in the physician role. Following the cases, the residents participated in a recorded, structured focus group. At the conclusion of the session participants again filled out the TEQ and answered a Likert questionnaire on their thoughts about the curriculum. Qualitative analysis was used to determine themes from the debriefs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Twenty-two residents completed all components of the study. The mean (±SD) TEQ scores pre- and postcurriculum for all residents were 46.2 (±4.64) pre and 47.9 (±6.03) post (<i>ns</i>). On qualitative analysis, we derived four major themes: empathy, communication, feedback, and physician experience. The most common subthemes discussed were empathy for the patient situation and the importance of communicating visit expectations. On a 5-point Likert survey related to the simulated cases, respondents rated comfort providing feedback to their peers (mean ± SD 4.41 ± 0.95) and gaining insight into the patient experience (mean ± SD 4.27 ± 0.83).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The embedded intern exercise was rated well by resident participants, with no observed change in empathy scores. Qualitative analysis identified empathy and communication as major themes. Residents enjoyed this style of simulation and found it realistic.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":37032,"journal":{"name":"AEM Education and Training","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AEM Education and Training","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aet2.10957","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Physician empathy and communication skills are crucial parts of a successful emergency department (ED) interaction. This study aimed to evaluate whether these skills can be improved through a novel curriculum where interns act as patients for their senior residents during simulated ED cases.

Methods

Twenty-five residents participated in the curriculum. Prior to the cases, participants filled out the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ). They then completed three simulated cases, with the 11 interns portraying the patients and the 14 seniors (postgraduate year [PGY]-2 and PGY-3 residents) in the physician role. Following the cases, the residents participated in a recorded, structured focus group. At the conclusion of the session participants again filled out the TEQ and answered a Likert questionnaire on their thoughts about the curriculum. Qualitative analysis was used to determine themes from the debriefs.

Results

Twenty-two residents completed all components of the study. The mean (±SD) TEQ scores pre- and postcurriculum for all residents were 46.2 (±4.64) pre and 47.9 (±6.03) post (ns). On qualitative analysis, we derived four major themes: empathy, communication, feedback, and physician experience. The most common subthemes discussed were empathy for the patient situation and the importance of communicating visit expectations. On a 5-point Likert survey related to the simulated cases, respondents rated comfort providing feedback to their peers (mean ± SD 4.41 ± 0.95) and gaining insight into the patient experience (mean ± SD 4.27 ± 0.83).

Conclusions

The embedded intern exercise was rated well by resident participants, with no observed change in empathy scores. Qualitative analysis identified empathy and communication as major themes. Residents enjoyed this style of simulation and found it realistic.

模拟移情:同理心课程中嵌入式常驻学习者的定性体验研究
目的 医生的同理心和沟通技巧是急诊科(ED)成功互动的关键部分。本研究旨在评估是否可以通过一种新颖的课程来提高这些技能,即实习生在模拟急诊科病例中充当高年级住院医师的病人。 方法 25 名住院医师参加了该课程。在病例前,参与者填写了多伦多移情问卷(TEQ)。然后,他们完成了三个模拟病例,其中 11 名实习生扮演患者,14 名高年级住院医师(研究生 2 年级和研究生 3 年级住院医师)扮演医生。病例结束后,住院医师参加了一个录制的结构化焦点小组。会议结束时,与会者再次填写了 TEQ,并回答了关于他们对课程的看法的李克特问卷。定性分析用于确定汇报中的主题。 结果 22 名住院医师完成了研究的全部内容。所有住院医师在课程前和课程后的 TEQ 平均得分(±SD)分别为前 46.2(±4.64)分和后 47.9(±6.03)分(ns)。通过定性分析,我们得出了四大主题:移情、沟通、反馈和医生体验。最常见的副主题是对患者情况的同情和沟通就诊期望的重要性。在与模拟病例相关的 5 点李克特调查中,受访者对向同行提供反馈(平均值±标准差 4.41 ± 0.95)和深入了解患者体验(平均值±标准差 4.27 ± 0.83)给予了舒适的评价。 结论 住院医师参与者对嵌入式实习练习的评价良好,没有观察到移情评分的变化。定性分析发现,移情和沟通是主要主题。住院医师喜欢这种模拟风格,并认为它很逼真。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AEM Education and Training
AEM Education and Training Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
22.20%
发文量
89
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信