BACKGROUND: Dress styles and forms of address vary among psychiatrists. METHOD: A semi-structured interview was administered to a sample of psychiatric in-patients, and a questionnaire was sent to junior and consultant psychiatrists, to identify preferences for dress styles and terms of address. RESULTS: Forty-nine (71%) of the in-patient sample participated. A preference was found for smart attire and white coats. Of the 69 (80%) doctors returning questionnaires, the majority supported smart dress as the most appropriate attire. Most patients preferred to be called by their first name while addressing doctors by title and surname. Junior doctors preferred to use first names when talking to patients while almost all consultants used title and surname. Doctors of all grades liked to be called by their title and surname. CONCLUSIONS: Paying more attention to the way we present ourselves and interact at work may help to facilitate the therapeutic alliance.
BACKGROUND: Dress styles and forms of address vary among psychiatrists. METHOD: A semi-structured interview was administered to a sample of psychiatric in-patients, and a questionnaire was sent to junior and consultant psychiatrists, to identify preferences for dress styles and terms of address. RESULTS: Forty-nine (71%) of the in-patient sample participated. A preference was found for smart attire and white coats. Of the 69 (80%) doctors returning questionnaires, the majority supported smart dress as the most appropriate attire. Most patients preferred to be called by their first name while addressing doctors by title and surname. Junior doctors preferred to use first names when talking to patients while almost all consultants used title and surname. Doctors of all grades liked to be called by their title and surname. CONCLUSIONS: Paying more attention to the way we present ourselves and interact at work may help to facilitate the therapeutic alliance.
Authors: Gordon T Kraft-Todd; Diego A Reinero; John M Kelley; Andrea S Heberlein; Lee Baer; Helen Riess Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 3.240