Biased Language in Simulated Handoffs and Clinician Recall and Attitudes.

IF 10.5 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Austin Wesevich, Erica Langan, Ilona Fridman, Sonya Patel-Nguyen, Monica E Peek, Victoria Parente
{"title":"Biased Language in Simulated Handoffs and Clinician Recall and Attitudes.","authors":"Austin Wesevich, Erica Langan, Ilona Fridman, Sonya Patel-Nguyen, Monica E Peek, Victoria Parente","doi":"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.50172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Poor-quality handoffs can lead to medical errors when transitioning patient care. Biased language within handoffs may contribute to errors and lead to disparities in health care delivery.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare clinical information recall accuracy and attitudes toward patients among trainees in paired cases of biased vs neutral language in simulated handoffs.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>Surveys administered from April 29 to June 15 and from July 20 to October 10, 2023, included 3 simulated verbal handoffs, randomized between biased and neutral, and measured clinical information recall, attitudes toward patients, and key takeaways after each handoff. Participants included residents in internal medicine, pediatrics, and internal medicine-pediatrics and senior medical students at 2 academic medical centers in different geographic regions of the US. Data were analyzed from November 2023 to June 2024.</p><p><strong>Exposures: </strong>Each participant received 3 handoffs that were based on real handoffs about Black patients at 1 academic center. These handoffs were each randomized to either a biased or neutral version. Biased handoffs had 1 of 3 types of bias: stereotype, blame, or doubt. The order of handoff presentation was also randomized. Internal medicine and pediatrics residents received slightly different surveys, tailored for their specialty. Internal medicine-pediatrics residents received the pediatric survey. Medical students were randomly assigned the survey type.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Each handoff was followed by a clinical information recall question, an adapted version of the Provider Attitudes Toward Sickle Cell Patients Scale (PASS), and 3 free-response takeaways.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 748 trainees contacted, 169 participants (142 residents and 27 medical students) completed the survey (23% overall response rate), distributed across institutions, residency programs, and years of training (95 female [56%]; mean [SD] age, 28.6 [2.3] years). Participants who received handoffs with blame-based bias had less accurate information recall than those who received neutral handoffs (77% vs 93%; P = .005). Those who reported bias as a key takeaway of the handoff had lower clinical information recall accuracy than those who did not (85% vs 93%; P = .01). Participants had less positive attitudes toward patients per PASS scores after receiving biased compared with neutral handoffs (mean scores, 22.9 [3.3] vs 25.2 [2.7]; P < .001). More positive attitudes toward patients were associated with higher clinical information recall accuracy (odds ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.22).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this survey study of residents and medical students, biased handoffs impeded accurate transfer of key clinical information and decreased empathy, potentially endangering patients and worsening health disparities. Handoff standardization is critical to addressing racial bias and improving patient safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":14694,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Network Open","volume":"7 12","pages":"e2450172"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Network Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.50172","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Poor-quality handoffs can lead to medical errors when transitioning patient care. Biased language within handoffs may contribute to errors and lead to disparities in health care delivery.

Objective: To compare clinical information recall accuracy and attitudes toward patients among trainees in paired cases of biased vs neutral language in simulated handoffs.

Design, setting, and participants: Surveys administered from April 29 to June 15 and from July 20 to October 10, 2023, included 3 simulated verbal handoffs, randomized between biased and neutral, and measured clinical information recall, attitudes toward patients, and key takeaways after each handoff. Participants included residents in internal medicine, pediatrics, and internal medicine-pediatrics and senior medical students at 2 academic medical centers in different geographic regions of the US. Data were analyzed from November 2023 to June 2024.

Exposures: Each participant received 3 handoffs that were based on real handoffs about Black patients at 1 academic center. These handoffs were each randomized to either a biased or neutral version. Biased handoffs had 1 of 3 types of bias: stereotype, blame, or doubt. The order of handoff presentation was also randomized. Internal medicine and pediatrics residents received slightly different surveys, tailored for their specialty. Internal medicine-pediatrics residents received the pediatric survey. Medical students were randomly assigned the survey type.

Main outcomes and measures: Each handoff was followed by a clinical information recall question, an adapted version of the Provider Attitudes Toward Sickle Cell Patients Scale (PASS), and 3 free-response takeaways.

Results: Of 748 trainees contacted, 169 participants (142 residents and 27 medical students) completed the survey (23% overall response rate), distributed across institutions, residency programs, and years of training (95 female [56%]; mean [SD] age, 28.6 [2.3] years). Participants who received handoffs with blame-based bias had less accurate information recall than those who received neutral handoffs (77% vs 93%; P = .005). Those who reported bias as a key takeaway of the handoff had lower clinical information recall accuracy than those who did not (85% vs 93%; P = .01). Participants had less positive attitudes toward patients per PASS scores after receiving biased compared with neutral handoffs (mean scores, 22.9 [3.3] vs 25.2 [2.7]; P < .001). More positive attitudes toward patients were associated with higher clinical information recall accuracy (odds ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.22).

Conclusions and relevance: In this survey study of residents and medical students, biased handoffs impeded accurate transfer of key clinical information and decreased empathy, potentially endangering patients and worsening health disparities. Handoff standardization is critical to addressing racial bias and improving patient safety.

模拟交接中的偏颇语言与临床医生的回忆和态度。
重要性:质量不高的交接班可能会在病人护理交接过程中导致医疗差错。交接过程中的偏颇语言可能会造成错误,并导致医疗服务的不平等:目的:在模拟交接过程中,比较有偏见语言与中性语言配对情况下受训人员回忆临床信息的准确性以及对患者的态度:调查于 2023 年 4 月 29 日至 6 月 15 日和 7 月 20 日至 10 月 10 日进行,包括 3 次模拟语言交接,在有偏见和中性语言之间随机切换,并在每次交接后测量临床信息回忆、对患者的态度和主要收获。参与者包括美国不同地区两所学术医学中心的内科、儿科、内科儿科住院医师和高年级医学生。数据分析时间为 2023 年 11 月至 2024 年 6 月:每位参与者都接受了 3 次交接,这些交接都是基于 1 个学术中心有关黑人患者的真实交接。每份交接单都随机分为偏颇版和中性版。有偏见的交接有三种偏见中的一种:刻板印象、指责或怀疑。交接的顺序也是随机的。内科和儿科住院医师收到的调查问卷略有不同,都是为其专业量身定制的。内科-儿科住院医师收到的是儿科调查问卷。医科学生随机分配调查类型:每次交接后都有一个临床信息回忆问题、一个改编版的 "医护人员对镰状细胞患者态度量表"(PASS)和 3 个自由回答的问题:在所联系的 748 名学员中,有 169 名学员(142 名住院医师和 27 名医学生)完成了调查(总回复率为 23%),他们分布在不同的机构、住院医师项目和培训年限(95 名女性 [56%];平均 [SD] 年龄为 28.6 [2.3] 岁)。与接受中性交接的参与者相比,接受带有责备偏见的交接的参与者回忆信息的准确性较低(77% vs 93%; P = .005)。将偏见作为交接的主要收获的参与者的临床信息回忆准确率低于未将偏见作为主要收获的参与者(85% vs 93%; P = .01)。与中性交接相比,在接受有偏见的交接后,参与者对患者的积极态度低于 PASS 分数(平均分数为 22.9 [3.3] vs 25.2 [2.7];P 结论和意义:在这项针对住院医师和医学生的调查研究中,有偏见的交接阻碍了关键临床信息的准确传递,并降低了同理心,可能会危及患者并加剧健康差异。交接标准化对于解决种族偏见和改善患者安全至关重要。
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
JAMA Network Open
JAMA Network Open Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
2126
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMA Network Open, a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, stands as an international, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal.The publication is dedicated to disseminating research across various health disciplines and countries, encompassing clinical care, innovation in health care, health policy, and global health. JAMA Network Open caters to clinicians, investigators, and policymakers, providing a platform for valuable insights and advancements in the medical field. As part of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Network Open contributes to the collective knowledge and understanding within the medical community.
×
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