Relationship Between Orthopedic Surgeon’s Empathy and Inpatient Hospital Experience Scores in a Tertiary Care Academic Institution

Abstract

Studies have examined the relationship between physician empathy and patient experience, but few have explored it in surgeons. The purpose of this study was to report on orthopedic surgeon empathy in a mutlispecialty practice and explore its association with orthopedic patient experience. Patients completed the consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure (March 2017-August 2018) and Canadian Patient Experience Survey-Inpatient Care (CPES-IC; March 2017-February 2019) to assess empathy and patient experience, respectively. Consultation and relational empathy measures were correlated to CPES-IC for 3 surgeon-related questions pertaining to respect, listening, and explaining. Surgeon CARE scores (n = 1134) ranged from 42.0 ± 9.1 to 48.6 ± 2.4 with 50.4% of patients rating their surgeon as perfectly empathic. There were no significant differences between surgeons for CPES-IC continuous and topbox scores (n = 834) for respect and correlations between CPES-IC questions. The CARE measure for both continuous and topbox scores were weak to moderate, but none were significant. Empathy was associated with surgeon respect and careful listening, despite lack of significant correlation. Possible future work could use an empathy tool more appropriate for this surgeon population.

Understanding of empathetic communication in acute hospital settings: a scoping review

“…Eleven studies (42%) were conducted in Europe,23–33 six (23%) in Asia,34–39 five (19%) in North America,40–44 three (12%) in Brazil45–47 and one (4%) in Australia 48. Twenty-one studies (81%) were published in or after 2017,23–25 27 28 31–36 39–48 with the earliest studies being published in 2014 26 29 37…”

“…Sixteen studies (62%) were cross-sectional studies,23 25–29 32 35 37 43 45–47 49–51 four (15%) were qualitative studies,24 34 44 48 three (12%) were mixed-methods studies,30 31 40 and there was one (4%) prospective cohort study,42 one quasi-experimental study39 and one (4%) randomised controlled trial 36…”

“…None of the 26 examined studies included an explicit definition of ‘empathetic communication’. However, 21 studies defined empathy at least once,23–29 32–39 42–44 46–48 with a total number of 36 definitions of ‘empathy’ (see online supplemental table 4). Each of these 21 studies provided a definition of empathy that referenced communication in some way as a component of empathy.…”

“…Twenty-three of 33 (70%) unique definitions referenced communication as part of the definition,23–29 32–39 42–44 46–48 using verbs like ‘communicate’, ‘convey’and ‘share’. Thirteen (57%) of these referred to empathy being an ability or capacity to communicate in some way,23 25–29 33 35 36 43 46 47 while nine (39%) referred to communication being a dynamic process or behaviour of empathy 24 27 34 37–39 42 44. One (3%) unique definition describes empathy differently—describing it as ‘the essence of all nurse–client communication’ 34 48…”

“…However, many of the definitions mention features of cognitive empathy, but do not explicitly define it. Cognitive empathy is described as having an ability to understand someone else’s perspective, feelings or emotions in the identified definitions,32 34 46–48 and 15 of 22 (68%) definitions that did not explicitly mention cognitive and emotional empathy, mentioned understanding someone else’s perspective, feelings or emotions in their definition 23 25–29 32–39 43 44…”