| Literature DB >> 20352501 |
Susan B Glick1, Leonor Fernandez, David M Irby, Elizabeth Harleman, Alicia Fernandez.
Abstract
Clinical teachers often observe interactions that may contribute to health care disparities, yet may hesitate to teach about them. A pedagogical model could help faculty structure teaching about health care disparities in the clinical setting, but to our knowledge, none have been adapted for this purpose. In this paper, we adapt an established model, Time-Effective Strategies for Teaching (TEST), to the teaching of health care disparities. We use several case scenarios to illustrate the core components of the model: diagnose the learner, teach rapidly to the learner's need, and provide feedback. The TEST model is straightforward, easy to use, and enables the incorporation of teaching about health care disparities into routine clinical teaching.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20352501 PMCID: PMC2847100 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-009-1203-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Gen Intern Med ISSN: 0884-8734 Impact factor: 5.128
Illustrative Differential Diagnosis of Learner’s Need Related to the Four Cases
| Sample case | Knowledge gap | Inadequate skills | Attitude barriers | Adverse circumstances |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case 1. Failure to use professional interpreter for patient with limited English proficiency | 1. Lack of knowledge about disparities associated with language barriers | 1. Uncertain how to access interpreters | 1. Frustration with the amount of time required to interview a patient with an interpreter | 1. Lack of on-site interpreters |
| 2. Unaware of error rate associated with ad hoc interpreters | 2. Uncertain how best to interview a patient using an interpreter | 2. Belief that all those living in the US should speak English | 2. Lack of bedside telephones for interpretation, especially in the ER and ICU | |
| 3. Unaware of confidentiality issues associated with ad hoc interpreters | 3. Feels skilled using an interpreter in person, but not by telephone (or vice versa) | 3. Reluctance to provide care to undocumented immigrants | 3. Lack of funding for telephone interpreters | |
| 4. Overestimates patient comprehension of English | 4. Concern about embarrassing patient/family member by suggesting an interpreter is needed | 4. Insufficient time | ||
| 5. Misjudges own ability to speak a language other than English | ||||
| Case 2. Too readily accepts patient refusal of indicated procedure | 1. Lack of knowledge about knee replacement | 1. Does not know how to elicit patient beliefs or values | 1. Believes joint replacement is not beneficial | 1. Inability to schedule patients for frequent follow up due to limited outpatient clinic availability and large panel size |
| 2. Unfamiliar with the evidence for disparities in knee replacement | 2. Uncertain how to negotiate treatment plan with patient | 2. Concerned that preoperative assessment will be too time consuming | 2. Competing responsibilities during outpatient clinic session, including inpatient care | |
| 3. Unaware of literature describing patient misconceptions of knee replacement | 3. Overly concerned with moving on to next patient | |||
| 4. Misunderstanding or misconception of the evidence about health care disparities | ||||
| Case 3. Mistaken assumption of substance abuse | 1. Unaware that biases and stereotypes may impact patients | 1. Unsure how to assess asthma severity or control | 1. Unaware of own biases and stereotypes, though believes others may possess them | 1. Limited demographic diversity in learner’s panel of patients |
| 2. Limited differential diagnosis for poorly controlled asthma | 2. Uncertain how to assess patients’ use of illicit substances | 2. Recognizes own biases/stereotypes but does not believe these affect patient care | 2. Limited opportunity to reflect on patient | |
| 3. Lack of knowledge about appropriate treatment of asthma | 3. Expected pace in ambulatory setting too rapid for learner’s ability | |||
| Case 4. Failure to diagnose low health literacy | 1. Unaware of prevalence of low health literacy | 1. Uncertain how to diagnose low health literacy | 1. Frustrated by the consequences of low health literacy including poor adherence and frequent hospitalizations | 1. Lack of patient education materials written at the 5th grade level or below |
| 2. Lack of knowledge about demographic groups most likely to experience low health literacy | 2. Lack of familiarity with strategies to respond to patients with low health literacy including teach-back method | 2. Disbelief that highly functioning individuals may experience poor health literacy | 2. Lack of support staff for patient education | |
| 3. Dependence on written material for patient education |
Questions a Teacher Might Ask to Diagnose the Learner
| Knowledge gap | Inadequate skills | Attitude barriers | Adverse circumstances |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Tell me about the last time you took care of a patient with this particular problem | 1. How often have you had an opportunity to use this particular skill? | 1. How do you feel about taking care of a patient with this particular problem? | 1. In what ways does our office/hospital make caring for a patient with this problem more difficult? |
| 2. What do you think is going on with this patient? What led you to that conclusion? | 2. The last time you used this skill, what went well? What didn’t go as well? | 2. What do you think led you to feel that way? | 2. What would it take to prioritize this problem higher on your list? |
| 3. What else do you think might have caused this patient’s symptoms/diagnosis? | 3. Have you observed this skill performed well? What made it successful? | 3. How do you think the patient felt or perceived you? | |
| 4. What sort of framework do you use when thinking about this problem? | |||
| 5. What do you know about this problem? |
Options for Time-Effective Strategies for Teaching
| Diagnosis | Knowledge gap | Inadequate skills | Attitude barriers | Adverse circumstances |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Potential Time-Effective Teaching Strategy | 1. One Minute Preceptor (i.e., diagnose the learner, teach general rules, provide feedback) | 1. Provide a demonstration, preferably with preview (before the demonstration), commentary (during the demonstration) and debriefing (following the demonstration) | 1. Identify good work and praise it | 1. Address situational difficulties while aligning with learner’s desire for competence. Set expectations in advance that this will be difficult |
| 2. Activated demonstration (i.e., Ask the learner to observe the teacher perform a specific task. Following the observation, activate the learner by asking him to describe what was observed) | 2. Provide guided practice with feedback | 2. Distinguish cognitive short cut from bias | 2. Introduce ABCs of root cause analysis [antecedents (what led up to the event?), behavior (what happened?) and consequences (what happened as a result?)] | |
| 3. Assign a reading | 3. Select cases that provide opportunity for independent practice | 3. Provide corrective feedback | ||
| 4. Identify key skills performed well and describe specifically what made them effective | 4. Encourage reflection (e.g., with open ended probe or direct question) |