Dataset Information

Religious hospitals and primary care physicians: conflicts over policies for patient care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Religiously affiliated hospitals provide nearly 20% of US beds, and many prohibit certain end-of-life and reproductive health treatments. Little is known about physician experiences in religious institutions.

Objective

Assess primary care physicians' experiences and beliefs regarding conflict with religious hospital policies for patient care.

Design

Cross-sectional survey.

Participants

General internists, family physicians, and general practitioners from the AMA Masterfile.

Main measures

In a questionnaire mailed in 2007, we asked physicians whether they had worked in a religiously affiliated hospital or practice, whether they had experienced conflict with the institution over religiously based patient care policies and how they believed physicians should respond to such conflicts. We used chi-square and multivariate logistic regression to examine associations between physicians' demographic and religious characteristics and their responses.

Key results

Of 879 eligible physicians, 446 (51%) responded. In analyses adjusting for survey design, 43% had worked in a religiously affiliated institution. Among these, 19% had experienced conflict over religiously based policies. Most physicians (86%) believed when clinical judgment conflicts with religious hospital policy, physicians should refer patients to another institution. Compared with physicians ages 26-29 years, older physicians were less likely to have experienced conflict with religiously based policies [odds ratio (95% confidence interval) compared with 30-34 years: 0.02 (0.00-0.11); 35-46 years: 0.07 (0.01-0.72); 47-60 years: 0.02 (0.00-0.10)]. Compared with those who never attend religious services, those who do attend were less likely to have experienced conflict [attend once a month or less: odds ratio 0.06 (0.01-0.29); attend twice a month or more: 0.22 (0.05-0.98)]. Respondents with no religious affiliation were more likely than others to believe doctors should disregard religiously based policies that conflict with clinical judgment (13% vs. 3%; p = 0.005).

Conclusions

Hospitals and policy-makers may need to balance the competing claims of physician autonomy and religiously based institutional policies.

SUBMITTER: Stulberg DB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2881970 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSince 2000, Israel has had a national program for ongoing monitoring of the quality of the primary care services provided by the country's four competing non-profit health plans. Previous research has demonstrated that quality of care has improved substantially since the program's inception and that the program enjoys wide support among health plan managers. However, prior to this study there were anecdotal and journalistic reports of opposition to the program among primary care physicians engaged in direct service delivery; these raised serious questions about the extent of support among physicians nationally.GoalsTo assess how Israeli primary care physicians experience and rate health plan efforts to track and improve the quality of care.MethodThe study population consisted of primary care physicians employed by the health plans who have responsibility for the quality of care of a panel of adult patients. The study team randomly sampled 250 primary-care physicians from each of the four health plans. Of the 1,000 physicians sampled, 884 met the study criteria. Every physician could choose whether to participate in the survey by mail, e-mail, or telephone. The anonymous questionnaire was completed by 605 physicians - 69% of those eligible. The data were weighted to reflect differences in sampling and response rates across health plans.Main findingsThe vast majority of respondents (87%) felt that the monitoring of quality was important and two-thirds (66%) felt that the feedback and subsequent remedial interventions improved medical care to a great extent. Almost three-quarters (71%) supported continuation of the program in an unqualified manner. The physicians with the most positive attitudes to the program were over age 44, independent contract physicians, and either board-certified in internal medicine or without any board-certification (i.e., residents or general practitioners). At the same time, support for the program was widespread even among physicians who are young, board-certified in family medicine, and salaried.Many physicians also reported that various problems had emerged to a great or very great extent: a heavier workload (65%), over-competitiveness (60%), excessive managerial pressure (48%), and distraction from other clinical issues (35%). In addition, there was some criticism of the quality of the measures themselves. Respondents also identified approaches to addressing these problems.ConclusionsThe findings provide perspective on the anecdotal reports of physician opposition to the monitoring program; they may well accurately reflect the views of the small number of physicians directly involved, but they do not reflect the views of primary care physicians as a whole, who are generally quite supportive of the program. At the same time, the study confirms the existence of several perceived problems. Some of these problems, such as excess managerial pressure, can probably best be addressed by the health plans themselves; while others, such as the need to refine the quality indicators, are probably best addressed at the national level. Cooperation between primary care physicians and health plan managers, which has been an essential component of the program's success thus far, can also play an important role in addressing the problems identified.

Project description:Patients admitted to general medicine inpatient services are increasingly cared for by hospital-based physicians rather than their primary care providers (PCPs). This separation of hospital and ambulatory care may result in important care discontinuities after discharge. We sought to determine whether communication between hospital-based physicians and PCPs influences patient outcomes.We approached consecutive patients admitted to general medicine services at six US academic centers from July 2001 to June 2003. A random sample of the PCPs for consented patients was contacted 2 weeks after patient discharge and surveyed about communication with the hospital medical team. Responses were linked with the 30-day composite patient outcomes of mortality, hospital readmission, and emergency department (ED) visits obtained through follow-up telephone survey and National Death Index search. We used hierarchical multi-variable logistic regression to model whether communication with the patient's PCP was associated with the 30-day composite outcome.A total of 1,772 PCPs for 2,336 patients were surveyed with 908 PCPs responses and complete patient follow-up available for 1,078 patients. The PCPs for 834 patients (77%) were aware that their patient had been admitted to the hospital. Of these, direct communication between PCPs and inpatient physicians took place for 194 patients (23%), and a discharge summary was available within 2 weeks of discharge for 347 patients (42%). Within 30 days of discharge, 233 (22%) patients died, were readmitted to the hospital, or visited an ED. In adjusted analyses, no relationship was seen between the composite outcome and direct physician communication (adjusted odds ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.56 - 1.34), the presence of a discharge summary (0.84, 95% CI 0.57-1.22), or PCP awareness of the index hospitalization (1.08, 95% CI 0.73-1.59).Analysis of communication between PCPs and inpatient medical teams revealed much room for improvement. Although communication during handoffs of care is important, we were not able to find a relationship between several aspects of communication and associated adverse clinical outcomes in this multi-center patient sample.

Project description:BackgroundMinority ethnic identification between physician and patient can reduce communication and access barriers, improve physician-patient relationship, trust, and health outcomes. Religion influences health beliefs, behaviours, treatment decisions, and outcomes. Ethically contentious dilemmas in treatment decisions are often entangled with religious beliefs. They feature more in medical specialties such as Anaesthesia & Intensive Care, with issues including informed consent for surgery, organ donation, transplant, transfusion, and end-of-life decisions.MethodsWe investigate diversity in religious affiliation in the UK medical workforce, using data from the General Medical Council (GMC) specialist register and Health Education England (HEE) trainee applications to medical specialties. We performed conservative Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons using Chi-squared tests, as well as normalised mutual-information scores. Robust associations that persisted on all sensitivity analyses are reported, investigating whether ethnicity or foreign primary medical qualification could explain the underlying association.FindingsThe only significant and robust association in both GMC and HEE datasets affecting the same religious group and specialty was disproportionately fewer Anaesthesia & Intensive Care physicians with a religious affiliation of "Muslim", both as consultants (RR 0.57[0.47,0.7]) and trainee applicants (RR 0.27[0.19,0.38]. Associations were not explained by ethnicity or foreign training. We discuss the myriad of implications of the findings for multi-cultural societies.ConclusionsLack of physician workforce diversity has far-reaching consequences, especially for specialties such as Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, where ethically contentious decisions could have a big impact. Religious beliefs and practices, or lack thereof, may have unmeasured influences on clinical decisions and on whether patients identify with physicians, which in turn can affect health outcomes. Examining an influencing variable such as religion in healthcare decisions should be prioritised, especially considering findings from the clinician-patient concordance literature. It is important to further explore potential historical and socio-cultural barriers to entry of training medics into under-represented specialties, such as Anaesthesia and Intensive Care.