BackgroundWe hypothesised the addition of brief empathetic statements to physician–patient interaction might decrease thoughts regarding litigation.MethodsWe 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).ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsIn 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 registrationNCT01837706.

No abstract

No abstract

CONTEXT Regular debriefing has been associated with improved resource utilization and measurable improvements in team performance in crisis situations. While Emergency Department (ED) staff have often stated that they would like to be provided a formal debriefing model after “code blue” and similar events, few EDs have such protocols in place. METHODS The study consisted of two data collection processes: (1) completion of a 7-item survey distributed pre-intervention, 6-months post-intervention, and 1-year post-intervention, and (2) completion of a Rapid Post-Code Debriefing form. Overall responses were measured on a possible 0-10 scale and individual responses were tracked. The debrief process was triggered by one of four criteria and followed a standard format using a readily available form. RESULTS A total of 178 pre- and post-debriefing protocol implementation survey responses were collected throughout the duration of the study. Of those, 79 (44.4%) were pre-protocol response surveys. The post-protocol responses were comprised of 51 (51.5%) six month and 48 (48.5%) 12-month surveys. The average overall satisfaction with code-response performance increased significantly following the implementation of the debriefing protocol, from M=6.661, SD=2.028 to M=7.90, SD=1.359 (independent t-test = 5.069, p<0.001). There was a statistically significant decrease regarding how respondents felt emotionally supported after a code by their staff, (Pearson Chi Square 14.977, df 4, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION During this study, implementation of a post-code debriefing resulted in increased overall satisfaction with how codes had been conducted and there was a significant change in how staff felt in regards to code team leaders and an expectation of “returning to work.” However, there a noted overall decrease in perceptions of feeling supported by other staff involved during the code. Further studies in both community and academic-based ED settings are needed to further explore these complex relationships.