Specialty‑level patterns of professionalism concerns in academic health systems: a multi‑system analysis with heat map visualizations.

IF 4.5 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Heather A Davidson, William Martinez, Thomas W Doub, Cynthia A Baldwin, Henry Domenico, William O Cooper, Gerald B Hickson
{"title":"Specialty‑level patterns of professionalism concerns in academic health systems: a multi‑system analysis with heat map visualizations.","authors":"Heather A Davidson, William Martinez, Thomas W Doub, Cynthia A Baldwin, Henry Domenico, William O Cooper, Gerald B Hickson","doi":"10.1093/acamed/wvag293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Unprofessional behavior in healthcare settings can undermine teamwork, communication, and patient outcomes. Although prior studies have shown that professionalism concerns are disproportionately concentrated among a subset of individual clinicians, less is known about specialty-level patterns. The purpose of this study was to examine whether professionalism concerns, measured using the Patient Advocacy Reporting System (PARS) risk categories, cluster at the specialty-group level within and across academic health systems (AHSs).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This retrospective, cross-sectional study used PARS risk categories, derived from deidentified unsolicited patient complaint data collected between March 1, 2014, and November 30, 2019. The study population consisted of 23,789 physicians representing 52 specialty groups and practicing across 19 Academic Health Systems (AHS) from multiple geographic areas regions of the United States. Physicians were categorized into high, intermediate, or low PARS risk categories. Inferential analyses used Pearson's chi-square tests to compare proportions of physicians within each risk category across specialties within the same AHS and within specialties across AHSs. Heat maps were created to visually summarize risk-category distributions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across the 19 AHSs, an average of 1.5% (n = 341) of physicians were classified as high PARS risk and 8.6% (n = 2149) as intermediate PARS risk, with substantial site-level variation. Statistically significant differences in PARS risk-category distributions across specialties were observed within 16 of 19 AHS (P<.001). Among the 23 specialties represented at all 19 AHSs, 69.6% (16/23) demonstrated significant (P<.05) between-system differences in risk-category distributions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings suggests that professionalism concerns may cluster at the specialty- group level both within and across AHSs. Routine specialty-level review, guided by statistical comparisons and complemented by heat map visualizations, may help leaders identify specialty groups and organizational contexts that warrant further evaluation to support professionalism and teamwork.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acamed/wvag293","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Unprofessional behavior in healthcare settings can undermine teamwork, communication, and patient outcomes. Although prior studies have shown that professionalism concerns are disproportionately concentrated among a subset of individual clinicians, less is known about specialty-level patterns. The purpose of this study was to examine whether professionalism concerns, measured using the Patient Advocacy Reporting System (PARS) risk categories, cluster at the specialty-group level within and across academic health systems (AHSs).

Method: This retrospective, cross-sectional study used PARS risk categories, derived from deidentified unsolicited patient complaint data collected between March 1, 2014, and November 30, 2019. The study population consisted of 23,789 physicians representing 52 specialty groups and practicing across 19 Academic Health Systems (AHS) from multiple geographic areas regions of the United States. Physicians were categorized into high, intermediate, or low PARS risk categories. Inferential analyses used Pearson's chi-square tests to compare proportions of physicians within each risk category across specialties within the same AHS and within specialties across AHSs. Heat maps were created to visually summarize risk-category distributions.

Results: Across the 19 AHSs, an average of 1.5% (n = 341) of physicians were classified as high PARS risk and 8.6% (n = 2149) as intermediate PARS risk, with substantial site-level variation. Statistically significant differences in PARS risk-category distributions across specialties were observed within 16 of 19 AHS (P<.001). Among the 23 specialties represented at all 19 AHSs, 69.6% (16/23) demonstrated significant (P<.05) between-system differences in risk-category distributions.

Conclusions: The findings suggests that professionalism concerns may cluster at the specialty- group level both within and across AHSs. Routine specialty-level review, guided by statistical comparisons and complemented by heat map visualizations, may help leaders identify specialty groups and organizational contexts that warrant further evaluation to support professionalism and teamwork.

专业水平模式的专业精神关注在学术卫生系统:多系统分析与热图可视化。
目的:医疗环境中的不专业行为会破坏团队合作、沟通和患者预后。虽然先前的研究表明,专业化的关注不成比例地集中在个体临床医生的子集中,但对专业水平的模式知之甚少。本研究的目的是检查使用患者倡导报告系统(PARS)风险类别测量的专业性问题是否聚集在学术卫生系统(AHSs)内部和跨专科组水平。方法:这项回顾性、横断面研究使用了PARS风险类别,这些风险类别来自2014年3月1日至2019年11月30日收集的未识别的主动患者投诉数据。研究人群包括来自美国多个地理区域的23,789名医生,代表52个专科组,在19个学术卫生系统(AHS)中执业。医生被分为高、中、低PARS风险类别。推断分析使用皮尔逊卡方检验来比较同一AHS内不同专科和不同AHS内不同专科的医生在每个风险类别中的比例。创建热图以直观地总结风险类别分布。结果:在19家AHSs中,平均有1.5% (n = 341)的医生被归类为PARS高风险,8.6% (n = 2149)的医生被归类为PARS中级风险,且存在很大的地区水平差异。在19个AHS中,有16个专科的PARS风险类别分布存在统计学上的显著差异(p)。结论:研究结果表明,专业性问题可能集中在专科组水平,无论是在AHS内部还是在AHS之间。在统计比较和热图可视化的指导下,例行的专业级审查可以帮助领导者确定需要进一步评估的专业群体和组织背景,以支持专业精神和团队合作。
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
Academic Medicine
Academic Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
982
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, acts as an international forum for exchanging ideas, information, and strategies to address the significant challenges in academic medicine. The journal covers areas such as research, education, clinical care, community collaboration, and leadership, with a commitment to serving the public interest.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书