Reflections From the Rearview Mirror: Internal Medicine Physicians' Reactions to Clinical Feedback After Transitions of Responsibility

Judith L. Bowen, Jonathan S. Ilgen, Glenn Regehr, Olle Ten Cate, David M. Irby, Bridget C. O'Brien

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: Learning from practice is important for continuous improvement of practice. Yet little is known about how physicians assimilate clinical feedback and use it to refine their diagnostic approaches. This study described physicians' reactions to learning that their provisional diagnosis was either consistent or inconsistent with the subsequent diagnosis, identified emotional responses to those findings, and explored potential consequences for future practices. METHOD: In 2016-2017, 22 internal medicine hospitalist and resident physicians at Oregon Health & Science University completed semistructured interviews. Critical incident prompts elicited cases of patient care transitions before the diagnosis was known. Interview questions explored participants' subsequent follow-up. Matrix analysis of case elements, emotional reactions, and perceived practice changes was used to compare patterns of responses between cases of confirming versus disconfirming clinical feedback. RESULTS: Participants described 51 cases. When clinical feedback confirmed provisional diagnoses (17 cases), participants recalled positive emotions, judged their performance as sufficient, and generally reinforced current approaches. When clinical feedback was disconfirming (34 cases), participants' emotional reactions were mostly negative, frequently tempered with rationalizations, and often associated with perceptions of having made a mistake. Perceived changes in practice mostly involved nonspecific strategies such as "trusting my intuition" and "broadening the differential," although some described case-specific strategies that could be applied in similar contexts in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Internists' experiences with posttransition clinical feedback are emotionally charged. Internists' reflections on clinical feedback experiences suggest they are primed to adapt practices for the future, although the usefulness of those adaptations for improving practice is less clear.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1953-1960
Number of pages8
JournalAcademic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges
Volume94
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2019

Fingerprint

physician
medicine
responsibility
rationalization
interview
intuition
patient care
learning
incident
diagnostic
experience
emotion
resident
science
health
performance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Cite this

Reflections From the Rearview Mirror : Internal Medicine Physicians' Reactions to Clinical Feedback After Transitions of Responsibility. / Bowen, Judith L.; Ilgen, Jonathan S.; Regehr, Glenn; Cate, Olle Ten; Irby, David M.; O'Brien, Bridget C.

In: Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, Vol. 94, No. 12, 01.12.2019, p. 1953-1960.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{900b681300234badb3c602145e8f5a72,
title = "Reflections From the Rearview Mirror: Internal Medicine Physicians' Reactions to Clinical Feedback After Transitions of Responsibility",
abstract = "PURPOSE: Learning from practice is important for continuous improvement of practice. Yet little is known about how physicians assimilate clinical feedback and use it to refine their diagnostic approaches. This study described physicians' reactions to learning that their provisional diagnosis was either consistent or inconsistent with the subsequent diagnosis, identified emotional responses to those findings, and explored potential consequences for future practices. METHOD: In 2016-2017, 22 internal medicine hospitalist and resident physicians at Oregon Health & Science University completed semistructured interviews. Critical incident prompts elicited cases of patient care transitions before the diagnosis was known. Interview questions explored participants' subsequent follow-up. Matrix analysis of case elements, emotional reactions, and perceived practice changes was used to compare patterns of responses between cases of confirming versus disconfirming clinical feedback. RESULTS: Participants described 51 cases. When clinical feedback confirmed provisional diagnoses (17 cases), participants recalled positive emotions, judged their performance as sufficient, and generally reinforced current approaches. When clinical feedback was disconfirming (34 cases), participants' emotional reactions were mostly negative, frequently tempered with rationalizations, and often associated with perceptions of having made a mistake. Perceived changes in practice mostly involved nonspecific strategies such as {"}trusting my intuition{"} and {"}broadening the differential,{"} although some described case-specific strategies that could be applied in similar contexts in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Internists' experiences with posttransition clinical feedback are emotionally charged. Internists' reflections on clinical feedback experiences suggest they are primed to adapt practices for the future, although the usefulness of those adaptations for improving practice is less clear.",
author = "Bowen, {Judith L.} and Ilgen, {Jonathan S.} and Glenn Regehr and Cate, {Olle Ten} and Irby, {David M.} and O'Brien, {Bridget C.}",
year = "2019",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/ACM.0000000000002831",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "94",
pages = "1953--1960",
journal = "Academic Medicine",
issn = "1040-2446",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reflections From the Rearview Mirror

T2 - Internal Medicine Physicians' Reactions to Clinical Feedback After Transitions of Responsibility

AU - Bowen, Judith L.

AU - Ilgen, Jonathan S.

AU - Regehr, Glenn

AU - Cate, Olle Ten

AU - Irby, David M.

AU - O'Brien, Bridget C.

PY - 2019/12/1

Y1 - 2019/12/1

N2 - PURPOSE: Learning from practice is important for continuous improvement of practice. Yet little is known about how physicians assimilate clinical feedback and use it to refine their diagnostic approaches. This study described physicians' reactions to learning that their provisional diagnosis was either consistent or inconsistent with the subsequent diagnosis, identified emotional responses to those findings, and explored potential consequences for future practices. METHOD: In 2016-2017, 22 internal medicine hospitalist and resident physicians at Oregon Health & Science University completed semistructured interviews. Critical incident prompts elicited cases of patient care transitions before the diagnosis was known. Interview questions explored participants' subsequent follow-up. Matrix analysis of case elements, emotional reactions, and perceived practice changes was used to compare patterns of responses between cases of confirming versus disconfirming clinical feedback. RESULTS: Participants described 51 cases. When clinical feedback confirmed provisional diagnoses (17 cases), participants recalled positive emotions, judged their performance as sufficient, and generally reinforced current approaches. When clinical feedback was disconfirming (34 cases), participants' emotional reactions were mostly negative, frequently tempered with rationalizations, and often associated with perceptions of having made a mistake. Perceived changes in practice mostly involved nonspecific strategies such as "trusting my intuition" and "broadening the differential," although some described case-specific strategies that could be applied in similar contexts in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Internists' experiences with posttransition clinical feedback are emotionally charged. Internists' reflections on clinical feedback experiences suggest they are primed to adapt practices for the future, although the usefulness of those adaptations for improving practice is less clear.

AB - PURPOSE: Learning from practice is important for continuous improvement of practice. Yet little is known about how physicians assimilate clinical feedback and use it to refine their diagnostic approaches. This study described physicians' reactions to learning that their provisional diagnosis was either consistent or inconsistent with the subsequent diagnosis, identified emotional responses to those findings, and explored potential consequences for future practices. METHOD: In 2016-2017, 22 internal medicine hospitalist and resident physicians at Oregon Health & Science University completed semistructured interviews. Critical incident prompts elicited cases of patient care transitions before the diagnosis was known. Interview questions explored participants' subsequent follow-up. Matrix analysis of case elements, emotional reactions, and perceived practice changes was used to compare patterns of responses between cases of confirming versus disconfirming clinical feedback. RESULTS: Participants described 51 cases. When clinical feedback confirmed provisional diagnoses (17 cases), participants recalled positive emotions, judged their performance as sufficient, and generally reinforced current approaches. When clinical feedback was disconfirming (34 cases), participants' emotional reactions were mostly negative, frequently tempered with rationalizations, and often associated with perceptions of having made a mistake. Perceived changes in practice mostly involved nonspecific strategies such as "trusting my intuition" and "broadening the differential," although some described case-specific strategies that could be applied in similar contexts in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Internists' experiences with posttransition clinical feedback are emotionally charged. Internists' reflections on clinical feedback experiences suggest they are primed to adapt practices for the future, although the usefulness of those adaptations for improving practice is less clear.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073971807&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85073971807&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002831

DO - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002831

M3 - Article

C2 - 31192795

AN - SCOPUS:85073971807

VL - 94

SP - 1953

EP - 1960

JO - Academic Medicine

JF - Academic Medicine

SN - 1040-2446

IS - 12

ER -