Where Trust Flourishes: Perceptions of Clinicians Who Trust Their Organizations and Are Trusted by Their Patients
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: PURPOSE
Trust is an essential component of health care. Clinicians need to trust organizational leaders to provide a safe and effective work environment, and patients need to trust their clinicians to deliver high-quality care while addressing their health care needs. We sought to determine perceived characteristics of clinics by clinicians who trust their organizations and whose patients have trust in them. METHODS
We used baseline data from the Healthy Work Place trial, a randomized trial of interventions to improve work life in 34 Midwest and East Coast primary care clinics, to identify clinic characteristics associated with high clinician and patient trust. RESULTS
The study included 165 clinicians with 1,132 patients. High trust by clinicians with patients who trusted them was found for 34% of 162 clinicians with sufficient data for modeling. High clinician-high patient trust occurred when clinicians perceived their organizational cultures to have (1) an emphasis on quality (odds ratio [OR] 4.95; 95% CI, 2.02-12.15; P <.001), (2) an emphasis on communication and information (OR 3.21; 95% CI, 1.33-7.78; P = .01), (3) cohesiveness among clinicians (OR 2.29; 95% CI, 1.25-4.20; P = .008), and (4) values alignment between clinicians and leaders (OR 1.86; 95% CI, 1.23-2.81; P = .003). CONCLUSION
Addressing organizational culture might improve the trust of clinicians whose patients have high trust in them.
SUBMITTER: Linzer M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8575506 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:This study explored patient perspectives of how online access to clinical notes (OpenNotes) within the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system may affect patients' relationships with their mental health clinicians.Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with 28 patients receiving VA mental health care who had accessed OpenNotes. Transcripts were coded and analyzed with a constant comparative approach.Respondents consistently reported that patient-clinician relationships-feelings of trust in particular-are critical to the therapeutic process and that reading clinical notes strengthens or strains patients' trust in mental health clinicians. Perceptions of transparency and respect as conveyed in notes were central to maintaining trust.Findings suggest that ensuring consistency between what occurs during appointments and what appears in clinical notes, as well as highlighting patient individuality and strengths in notes, may help engender patient trust and avoid negative consequences of OpenNotes in mental health care.
| S-EPMC5411285 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTrust informs supervision decisions in medical training. Factors that influence trust differ depending on learners' and supervisors' level. Research has focused on resident trainees; questions exist about how medical students experience entrustment.ObjectiveThis study examines how clerkship students perceive supervisors' trust in them and its impact on their learning.DesignQualitative study using individual semi-structured interviews.ParticipantsClerkship medical students at the University of California, San Francisco.ApproachWe invited 30 core clerkship students to participate in interviews (October 2017 to February 2018) eliciting examples of appropriate, over-, and under-trust. We coded and analyzed transcripts using thematic analysis.Key resultsSixteen (53%) students participated. Three major themes arose: trust as scaffolding for learning, effects of trust on the learning environment, and consequences of trust for patients. Appropriate trust usually involved coaching and close guidance, often with more junior supervisors (interns or residents). These situations fostered students' motivation to learn, sense of value on the team, and perceived benefits to patients. Over-trust was characterized by task assignment without clear instruction, supervision, or feedback. Over-trust prompted student anxiety and stress, and concerns for potential patient harm. Under-trust was characterized by lack of clarity about the student role, leading to frustration and discontent, with unclear impact on patients. Students attributed inappropriate trust to contextual and supervisor factors and did not feel empowered to intervene due to concerns about performance evaluations and hierarchy.ConclusionsAs early learners in the clinical workplace, students frame trust as entailing high levels of support. It is important for medical educators to consider ways to train resident and faculty supervisors to enact trust and supervision for students differently than for residents. Structures that encourage students and supervisors to discuss trust and supervision in a transparent way can enhance learning.
| S-EPMC6502927 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo determine how patients perceive their quality of life (QOL) six months following critical illness and to measure clinicians' discriminative accuracy of predicting this outcome.Materials and methodsThis prospective cohort study of intensive care unit (ICU) survivors asked patients to report their QOL strictly at six months compared to one month before their critical illness as better, the same, or worse. ICU physicians and nurses made six-month QOL predictions for these patients.ResultsOf 162 critical illness survivors, 33% (n = 53) of patients reported six-month QOL as better, 33% (n = 54) the same, and 34% (n = 55) worse. Abnormal cognition and inability to return to primary pastime or original place of residence (p < .05 for all) were associated with worse self-reported QOL at six months in multivariable regression. Predictions of patient perceptions of QOL at six months were pessimistic and had low discriminative accuracy for both physicians (sensitivity 56%, specificity 53%) and nurses (sensitivity 49%, specificity 57%).ConclusionsAmong survivors of critical illness, one-third each reported their six-month post-ICU QOL as better, the same, or worse. Self-reported six-month QOL was associated with six-month function. ICU clinicians should use caution in predicting self-reported QOL, as discriminative accuracy was poor in this cohort.
| S-EPMC6417499 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposePatients' trust in health care is increasingly recognized as important to quality care, yet questions remain about what types of health care experiences erode trust. The current study assessed the prevalence and impact of institutional betrayal on patients' trust and engagement in health care.Participants and methodsParticipants who had sought health care in the US in October 2013 were recruited from an online marketplace, Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Participants (n = 707; 73% Caucasian; 56.8% female; 9.8% lesbian, gay, or bisexual; median age between 18 and 35 years) responded to survey questions about health care use, trust in health care providers and organizations, negative medical experiences, and institutional betrayal.ResultsInstitutional betrayal was reported by two-thirds of the participants and predicted disengagement from health care (r = 0.36, p < 0.001). Mediational models (tested using bootstrapping analyses) indicated a negative, nonzero pathway between institutional betrayal and trust in health care organizations (b = -0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [-0.07, -0.02]), controlling for trust in physicians and hospitalization history. These negative effects were not buffered by trust in one's own physician, but in fact patients who trusted their physician more reported lower trust in health care organizations following negative medical events (interaction b = -0.02, 95%CI = [-0.03, -0.01]).ConclusionClinical implications are discussed, concluding that institutional betrayal decreases patient trust and engagement in health care.
| S-EPMC5388348 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Postoperative critical care is a finite resource that is recommended for high-risk patients. Despite national recommendations specifying that such patients should receive postoperative critical care, there is evidence that these recommendations are not universally followed. We performed a national survey aiming to better understand how patients are risk-stratified in practice; elucidate clinicians' opinions about how patients should be selected for critical care; and determine factors which affect the actual provision of postoperative critical care. As part of the second Sprint National Anaesthesia Project, epidemiology of critical care after surgery study, we distributed a paper survey to anaesthetists, surgeons and intensivists providing peri-operative care during a single week in March 2017. We collected data on respondent characteristics, and their opinions of postoperative critical care provision, potential benefits and real-world challenges. We undertook both quantitative and qualitative analyses to interpret the responses. We received 10,383 survey responses from 237 hospitals across the UK. Consultants used a lower threshold for critical care admission than other career grades, indicating potentially more risk-averse behaviour. The majority of respondents reported that critical care provision was inadequate, and cited the value of critical care as being predominantly due to higher nurse: patient ratios. Use of objective risk assessment tools was poor, and patients were commonly selected for critical care based on procedure-specific pathways rather than individualised risk assessment. Challenges were highlighted in the delivery of peri-operative critical care services, such as an overall lack of capacity, competition for beds with non-surgical cases and poor flow through the hospital leading to bed 'blockages'. Critical care is perceived to provide benefit to high-risk surgical patients, but there is variation in practice about the definition and determination of risk, how patients are referred and how to deal with the lack of critical care resources. Future work should focus on evaluating 'enhanced care' units for postoperative patients, how to better implement individualised risk assessment in practice, and how to improve patient flow through hospitals.
| S-EPMC7898787 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveClinicians and healthcare organizations are ethically obligated to treat patients with respect, yet it is not clear what actions best demonstrate respect to patients. This exploratory qualitative study aimed to understand what actions on both an individual and organizational level effectively demonstrate respect for primary care patients.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with primary care patients in an integrated healthcare delivery system in Oregon and an integrated safety net health system in Colorado who were participating in a genomics implementation research study of a hereditary cancer screening program. We systematically coded interview transcripts using a coding framework developed based on iterative review of the interview guide and transcripts. We further analyzed the data coded with sub-codes relating to patients' experiences with respect in healthcare using a descriptive content analysis approach.ResultsWe interviewed 40 English-speaking (n = 30, 75%) and Spanish-speaking (n = 10, 25%) patients. Most interviewees identified as female (n = 35, 88%) and either Hispanic/Latino(a) (n = 17, 43%) or White or European American (n = 15, 38%). Interviewees identified two categories of efforts by individual clinicians that demonstrate respect: engaging with patients and being transparent. They identified five efforts by healthcare organizations: promoting safety and inclusivity, protecting patient privacy, communicating about scheduling, navigating financial barriers to care, and ensuring continuity of care.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that patients' experiences of respect depend on efforts by individual clinicians as well as healthcare organizations. Our findings offer insight into how clinicians can build stronger partnerships with patients and how organizations can seek to promote access to care and patient safety and comfort. They also illustrate areas for future research and quality improvement to more effectively respect patients.
| S-EPMC8084197 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAsthma affects 235 million people worldwide. Supported self-management, including an action plan agreed with clinicians, improves asthma outcomes. Internet-of-things (IoT) systems with artificial intelligence (AI) can provide customized support for a range of self-management functions, but trust is vital to encourage patients' adoption of such systems. Many models for understanding trust exist, some explicitly designed for eHealth, but no studies have used these models to explore trust in the context of using IoT systems to support asthma self-management.ObjectiveIn this study, we aim to use the McKnight model to explore the functionality, helpfulness, and reliability domains of patients' and clinicians' trust in IoT systems to deliver the 14 components of self-management support defined by the PRISMS (Practical Reviews in Self-Management Support) taxonomy.MethodsWe used think-aloud techniques in semistructured interviews to explore the views of patients and clinicians. Patients were recruited from research registers and social media and purposively sampled to include a range of ages, genders, action plan ownership, asthma duration, hospital admissions, and experience with mobile apps. Clinicians (primary, secondary, and community-based) were recruited from professional networks. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was used to explore perceptions of the functionality, helpfulness, and reliability of IoT features to support components of supported self-management.ResultsA total of 12 patients and 12 clinicians were interviewed. Regarding perceived functionality, most patients considered that an IoT system had functionality that could support a broad range of self-management tasks. They wanted a system to provide customized advice involving AI. With regard to perceived helpfulness, they considered that IoT systems could usefully provide integrated support for a number of recognized components of self-management support. In terms of perceived reliability, they believed they could rely on the system to log their asthma condition and provide preset action plan advice triggered by their logs. However, they were less confident that the system could operate continuously and without errors in providing advice. They were not confident that AI could generate new advice or reach diagnostic conclusions without the interpretation of their trusted clinicians. Clinicians wanted clinical evidence before trusting the system.ConclusionsIoT systems including AI were regarded as offering potentially helpful functionality in mediating the action plans developed with a trusted clinician, although our technologically adept participants were not yet ready to trust AI to generate novel advice. Research is needed to ensure that technological capability does not outstrip the trust of individuals using it.
| S-EPMC8325078 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Vaccination against seasonal influenza (SIV) is recommended for patients with diabetes, but their vaccination coverage is unsatisfactory in France and elsewhere. This qualitative survey of people with diabetes sought to explore 1) the extent to which SIV-related behaviour is more or less automatic; 2) reasons they choose/reject SIV; 3) their trust/distrust in authorities, science, and medicine. METHODS:We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews of 19 adults with diabetes in 2014. We recruited them through physicians or patient associations and implemented an analysis of thematic content. RESULTS:Eight patients were vaccinated against flu in the preceding flu season and 11 were not. SIV uptake and refusal were stable over time and justified by multiple arguments. Coupons for free vaccines and regular doctor visits contributed to the habit of vaccination. Vaccination decisions were frequently anchored in past experiences of influenza and its vaccine. Patients often justified non-vaccination with attitudes of trivialisation/relativisation of influenza-associated risks and the perception that these can be controlled by means other than vaccination (e.g., through the avoidance of exposure). Some misbeliefs (e.g., SIV causes influenza) and doubts about SIV effectiveness and safety also existed. Several patients reported increased mistrust of SIV since the A/H1N1 pandemic in 2009. Patients trusted their doctors strongly regardless of their SIV behaviour, but unvaccinated patients had little trust in the government and pharmaceutical companies. Some discordances were found between perceptions and behaviour (e.g., remaining vaccinated despite doubts about SIV effectiveness or remaining unvaccinated despite feelings of vulnerability towards influenza complication), suggesting the existence of some vaccine hesitancy among patients. CONCLUSION:This study among patients with diabetes suggest that SIV uptake is stable, thanks to a favourable environment. Nonetheless, SIV refusal is also stable over time. Unvaccinated patients used multiple arguments to justify SIV refusal, including compensatory health beliefs. Physicians should take every opportunity to recommend SIV. The necessary individualised patient education regarding SIV requires better physician training in patients priorities. While almost all patients strongly trust their doctors, unvaccinated patients distrust distal stakeholders: it is absolutely essential to restore trust in them and to develop new more effective influenza vaccines.
| S-EPMC5930433 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Most Americans think that the country is politically divided and polarization will only get worse, not better. Such perceptions of polarization are widespread, but we do not know enough about their effects, especially those unrelated to political variables. This study examines the consequences of perceived polarization for levels of social trust in the United States. Trust in fellow citizens is the backbone of a well-functioning democracy, given its role in promoting social cohesion and facilitating collective action. Using nationally representative panel data, as well as an original survey experiment, I find that perceived polarization directly undermines Americans' trust in each other. A belief that members of society share common values fosters social trust, but perceptions of partisan divisions and polarization make people less trusting of their fellow citizens. Due to perceived polarization, people are less likely to believe that others can be trusted to do the right thing, which in turn decreases their willingness to cooperate for good causes. I discuss the implications of these findings for society's ability to work together toward common goals.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11109-022-09787-1.
| S-EPMC8932466 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reducing inappropriate prescribing is key to mitigating antibiotic resistance, particularly in acute care settings. Clinicians' prescribing decisions are influenced by their judgments and actual or perceived patient expectations. Fuzzy trace theory predicts that patients and clinicians base such decisions on categorical gist representations that reflect the bottom-line understanding of information about antibiotics. However, due to clinicians' specialized training, the categorical gists driving clinicians' and patients' decisions might differ, which could result in mismatched expectations and inefficiencies in targeting interventions. We surveyed clinicians and patients from 2 large urban academic hospital emergency departments (EDs) and a sample of nonpatient subjects regarding their gist representations of antibiotic decisions, as well as relevant knowledge and expectations. Results were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and multifactor regression. In total, 149 clinicians (47% female; 74% white), 519 online subjects (45% female; 78% white), and 225 ED patients (61% female; 56% black) completed the survey. While clinicians demonstrated greater knowledge of antibiotics and concern about side effects than patients, the predominant categorical gist for both patients and clinicians was "why not take a risk," which compares the status quo of remaining sick to the possibility of benefit from antibiotics. This gist also predicted expectations and prior prescribing in the nonpatient sample. Other representations reflected the gist that "germs are germs" conflating bacteria and viruses, as well as perceptions of side effects and efficacy. Although individually rational, reliance on the "why not take a risk" representation can lead to socially suboptimal results, including antibiotic resistance and individual patient harm due to adverse events. Changing this representation could alter clinicians' and patients' expectations, suggesting opportunities to reduce overprescribing.
| S-EPMC6274591 | biostudies-literature