Dataset Information

The growing pains of physician-administration relationships in an academic medical center and the effects on physician engagement.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Physician engagement has become a key metric for healthcare leadership and is associated with better healthcare outcomes. However, engagement tends to be low and difficult to measure and improve. This study sought to efficiently characterize the professional cultural dynamics between physicians and administrators at an academic hospital and how those dynamics affect physician engagement.

Materials and methods

A qualitative mixed methods analysis was completed in 6 weeks, consisting of a preliminary analysis of the hospital system's history that was used to purposefully recruit 20 physicians across specialties and 20 healthcare administrators across management levels for semi-structured interviews and observation. Participation rates of 77% (20/26) and 83% (20/24) were achieved for physicians and administrators, respectively. Cohorts consisted of equal numbers of men and women with experience ranging from 1 to 35 years within the organization. Field notes and transcripts were systematically analyzed using an iterative inductive-deductive approach. Emergent themes were presented and discussed with approximately 400 physicians and administrators within the organization to assess validity and which results were most meaningful.

Results & discussion

This investigation indicated a professional cultural disconnect was undermining efforts to improve physician engagement. This disconnect was further complicated by a minority (10%) not believing an issue existed and conflicting connotations not readily perceived by participants who often offered similar solutions. Physicians and administrators felt these results accurately reflected their realities and used this information as a common language to plan targeted interventions to improve physician engagement. Limitations of the study included its cross-sectional nature with a modest sample size at a single institution.

Conclusions

A qualitative mixed methods analysis efficiently identified professional cultural barriers within an academic hospital to serve as an institution-specific guide to improving physician engagement.

SUBMITTER: Keller EJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6373942 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIn an effort to regulate physician conflicts of interest, some US academic medical centers (AMCs) enacted policies restricting pharmaceutical representative sales visits to physicians (known as detailing) between 2006 and 2012. Little is known about the effect of these policies on physician prescribing.ObjectiveTo analyze the association between detailing policies enacted at AMCs and physician prescribing of actively detailed and not detailed drugs.Design, setting, and participantsThe study used a difference-in-differences multivariable regression analysis to compare changes in prescribing by physicians before and after implementation of detailing policies at AMCs in 5 states (California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New York) that made up the intervention group with changes in prescribing by a matched control group of similar physicians not subject to a detailing policy.ExposuresAcademic medical center implementation of policies regulating pharmaceutical salesperson visits to attending physicians.Main outcomes and measuresThe monthly within-drug class market share of prescriptions written by an individual physician for detailed and nondetailed drugs in 8 drug classes (lipid-lowering drugs, gastroesophageal reflux disease drugs, diabetes drugs, antihypertensive drugs, hypnotic drugs approved for the treatment of insomnia [sleep aids], attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drugs, antidepressant drugs, and antipsychotic drugs) comparing the 10- to 36-month period before implementation of the detailing policies with the 12- to 36-month period after implementation, depending on data availability.ResultsThe analysis included 16 121 483 prescriptions written between January 2006 and June 2012 by 2126 attending physicians at the 19 intervention group AMCs and by 24 593 matched control group physicians. The sample mean market share at the physician-drug-month level for detailed and nondetailed drugs prior to enactment of policies was 19.3% and 14.2%, respectively. Exposure to an AMC detailing policy was associated with a decrease in the market share of detailed drugs of 1.67 percentage points (95% CI, -2.18 to -1.18 percentage points; P < .001) and an increase in the market share of nondetailed drugs of 0.84 percentage points (95% CI, 0.54 to 1.14 percentage points; P < .001). Associations were statistically significant for 6 of 8 study drug classes for detailed drugs (lipid-lowering drugs, gastroesophageal reflux disease drugs, antihypertensive drugs, sleep aids, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drugs, and antidepressant drugs) and for 9 of the 19 AMCs that implemented policies. Eleven of the 19 AMCs regulated salesperson gifts to physicians, restricted salesperson access to facilities, and incorporated explicit enforcement mechanisms. For 8 of these 11 AMCs, there was a significant change in prescribing. In contrast, there was a significant change at only 1 of 8 AMCs that did not enact policies in all 3 areas.Conclusions and relevanceImplementation of policies at AMCs that restricted pharmaceutical detailing between 2006 and 2012 was associated with modest but significant reductions in prescribing of detailed drugs across 6 of 8 major drug classes; however, changes were not seen in all of the AMCs that enacted policies.

Project description:BackgroundAcademic Medical Centers (AMCs) must simultaneously serve different purposes: Delivery of high quality healthcare services to patients, as the main mission, supported by other core missions such as academic activities, i.e., researching, teaching and tutoring, while maintaining solvency. This study aims to develop a methodology for constructing models evaluating the academic value provided by AMCs and implementing it at the largest AMC in Israel.MethodsThirty five practiced educators and researchers, academic experts, faculty members and executives, all employed by a metropolitan 1500-bed AMC, were involved in developing academic quality indicators. First, an initial list of AMCs' academic quality indicators was drafted, using a literature review and consulting scholars. Afterwards, additional data and preferences were collected by conducting semi-structured interviews, complemented by a three-round Delphi Panel. Finally, the methodology for constructing a model evaluating the academic value provided by the AMC was developed.ResultsThe composite academic quality indicators methodology consists of nine indicators (relative weight in parentheses): 'Scientific Publications Value' (18.7%), 'Completed Studies' (13.5%), 'Authors Value' (13.0%), 'Residents Quality' (11.3%), 'Competitive Grants Budget' (10.2%), 'Academic Training' (8.7%), 'Academic Positions' (8.3%), 'Number of Studies' (8.3%) and 'Academic Supervision' (8.0%). These indicators were grouped into three core categories: 'Education', 'Research' and 'Publications', having almost the same importance on a scale from zero to one (0-1), i.e., 0.363, 0.320, and 0.317, respectively. The results demonstrated a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach-alpha range: 0.79-0.86).ConclusionsWe have found a gap in the ability to measure academic value provided by AMCs. The main contribution of this research is the development of methodology for constructing evaluation models for AMCs academic performance. Further studies are needed to further test the validity and reliability of the proposed methodology at other sites.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The first year of graduate medical education is an important period in the professional development of physicians. Disruptive behavior interferes with safe and effective clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and nature of disruptive behavior perceived by interns and attending physicians in a teaching hospital environment. METHOD: All 516 interns at Partners HealthCare (Boston, MA) during the 2010 and 2011 academic years were eligible to complete an anonymous questionnaire. A convenience nonrandom sample of 40 attending physicians also participated. RESULTS: A total of 394 of 516 eligible interns (76.4%) participated. Attendings and interns each reported that their team members generally behaved professionally (87.5% versus 80.4%, respectively). A significantly greater proportion of attendings than interns felt respected at work (90.0% versus 71.5% respectively; P = .01). Disruptive behavior was experienced by 93% of interns; 54% reported that they experienced it once a month or more. Interns reported disruptive behavior significantly more frequently than attending physicians, including increased reports of condescending behavior (odds ratio [OR], 5.46 for interns compared with attendings; P < .001), exclusion from decision making (OR, 6.97; P < .001), and berating (OR, 4.84; P = .02). Inappropriate jokes, abusive language, and gender bias were also reported, and they were not significantly more frequent among interns than attending physicians. Interns most frequently identified nurses as the source of disruption, and were significantly more likely than faculty to identify nurses as the source of disruptive behavior (OR, 10.40; P < .001). Attendings reported other physicians as the most frequent source of disruption. CONCLUSIONS: Although interns generally feel respected at work, they frequently experience disruptive behavior. Interns described more disruptive behaviors than a convenience sample of attending physicians at our institution.