Dustin D Smith1, Jesse Kellar2, Elizabeth L Walters1, Ellen T Reibling1, Tammy Phan1, Steven M Green1. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Loma Linda University Medical Center and Children's Hospital, Loma Linda, California, USA. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Loma Linda University Medical Center and Children's Hospital, Loma Linda, California, USA Department of Emergency Medicine, Lakeland Health, St Joseph, Michigan, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We hypothesised the addition of brief empathetic statements to physician-patient interaction might decrease thoughts regarding litigation. METHODS: We enrolled a convenience sample of adults in our emergency department (ED) waiting room into a randomised, double-blind controlled trial. Subjects watched videos of simulated discharge conversations between physicians and patient actors; half of the videos differed only by the inclusion of two brief empathetic statements: verbalisations that (1) the physician recognises that the patient is concerned about their symptoms and (2) the patient knows their typical state of health better than a physician seeing them for the first time and did the right thing by seeking evaluation. After watching the video subjects were asked to score a five-point Likert scale their thoughts regarding suing this physician in the event of a missed outcome leading to lost work (primary outcome), and four measures of satisfaction with the physician encounter (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: We enrolled and randomised 437 subjects. 213 in the empathy group and 208 in the non-empathy group completed the trial. Sixteen subjects did not complete the trial due to computer malfunction or incomplete data sheets. Empathy group subjects reported statistically significant less thoughts of litigation than the non-empathy group (mean Likert scale 2.66 vs 2.95, difference -0.29, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.54, p=0.0176). All four secondary measures of satisfaction with the physician encounter were better in the empathy group. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the addition of brief empathetic statements to ED discharge scenarios was associated with a statistically significant reduction in thoughts regarding litigation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01837706. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: We hypothesised the addition of brief empathetic statements to physician-patient interaction might decrease thoughts regarding litigation. METHODS: We enrolled a convenience sample of adults in our emergency department (ED) waiting room into a randomised, double-blind controlled trial. Subjects watched videos of simulated discharge conversations between physicians and patient actors; half of the videos differed only by the inclusion of two brief empathetic statements: verbalisations that (1) the physician recognises that the patient is concerned about their symptoms and (2) the patient knows their typical state of health better than a physician seeing them for the first time and did the right thing by seeking evaluation. After watching the video subjects were asked to score a five-point Likert scale their thoughts regarding suing this physician in the event of a missed outcome leading to lost work (primary outcome), and four measures of satisfaction with the physician encounter (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: We enrolled and randomised 437 subjects. 213 in the empathy group and 208 in the non-empathy group completed the trial. Sixteen subjects did not complete the trial due to computer malfunction or incomplete data sheets. Empathy group subjects reported statistically significant less thoughts of litigation than the non-empathy group (mean Likert scale 2.66 vs 2.95, difference -0.29, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.54, p=0.0176). All four secondary measures of satisfaction with the physician encounter were better in the empathy group. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the addition of brief empathetic statements to ED discharge scenarios was associated with a statistically significant reduction in thoughts regarding litigation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01837706. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Authors: Shoham Choshen-Hillel; Ido Sadras; Tom Gordon-Hecker; Shir Genzer; David Rekhtman; Eugene M Caruso; Koby L Clements; Adrienne Ohler; David Gozal; Salomon Israel; Anat Perry; Alex Gileles-Hillel Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 12.779
Authors: Katie E Pettit; Nicholas A Rattray; Hao Wang; Shanna Stuckey; D Mark Courtney; Anne M Messman; Jeffrey A Kline Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2019-03-28
Authors: Jon A Wolfshohl; Keegan Bradley; Charles Bell; Sarah Bell; Caleb Hodges; Heidi Knowles; Bharti R Chaudhari; Ryan Kirby; Jeffrey A Kline; Hao Wang Journal: J Clin Med Res Date: 2019-06-11