Physicians' Needs in Coping With Emotional Stressors The Case for Peer Support

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill.: 1960) (Impact Factor: 4.93). 11/2011; 147(3):212-7. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2011.312
Source: PubMed


To design an evidence-based intervention to address physician distress, based on the attitudes toward support among physicians at our hospital.
A 56-item survey was administered to a convenience sample (n = 108) of resident and attending physicians at surgery, emergency medicine, and anesthesiology departmental conferences at a large tertiary care academic hospital.
Likelihood of seeking support, perceived barriers, awareness of available services, sources of support, and experience with stress.
Among the resident and attending physicians, 79% experienced either a serious adverse patient event and/or a traumatic personal event within the preceding year. Willingness to seek support was reported for legal situations (72%), involvement in medical errors (67%), adverse patient events (63%), substance abuse (67%), physical illness (62%), mental illness (50%), and interpersonal conflict at work (50%). Barriers included lack of time (89%), uncertainty or difficulty with access (69%), concerns about lack of confidentiality (68%), negative impact on career (68%), and stigma (62%). Physician colleagues were the most popular potential sources of support (88%), outnumbering traditional mechanisms such as the employee assistance program (29%) and mental health professionals (48%). Based on these results, a one-on-one peer physician support program was incorporated into support services at our hospital.
Despite the prevalence of stressful experiences and the desire for support among physicians, established services are underused. As colleagues are the most acceptable sources of support, we advocate peer support as the most effective way to address this sensitive but important issue.

Download full-text


Available from: Megan L Fix,
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In July 2011, the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society sponsored a think tank of experts in the field of medical professionalism to focus on interventions and remediation strategies for those-medical students, residents, faculty, and practicing physicians-who demonstrate lapses in professional performance, particularly if the lapses are repeated. Several participants have produced scholarly work on the assessment of professionalism. However, assessment has a limited purpose unless it leads to improvements at both the organizational and individual levels. The field of professionalism has matured enough to recognize that one of the contemporary issues within the self-regulation framework is the task of remediation. Yet there is a paucity of evidence to inform best practices to help those who have lapses. Ultimately, the most effective response to an individual's lapse in professionalism may not be simply to gather knowledge about remedial practices but also to understand organizational responses to the information about such practices already possessed by the institution.The authors report the think tank participants' recommendations on (1) how to use existing data on professionalism remediation and (2) what new evidence is needed to advance approaches to remediation of professional performance. Participants also recommended that the education community can focus on interventions and remediation by (1) performing studies about improving medical professionalism when lapses occur, (2) identifying best evidence-based remediation practices, (3) widely disseminating those practices, and (4) moving over time from a best-practices approach to remediation (which does not yet exist) to a best-evidence model.
    Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 10/2012; 87(12). DOI:10.1097/ACM.0b013e318271bc0b · 2.93 Impact Factor

  • Medical Education 12/2012; 46(12):1149-51. DOI:10.1111/medu.12074 · 3.20 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: Making a medical error can have serious implications for clinician well-being, affecting the quality and safety of patient care. Despite an advancing literature base, cross-country exploration of this experience is limited, and a paucity of studies has examined the coping strategies used by clinicians. A greater understanding of clinicians' responses to making an error, the factors that may influence these, and the various coping strategies used are all essential for providing effective clinician support and ensuring optimal outcomes.The objectives were therefore to investigate the following: a) the professional or personal disruption experienced after making an error, b) the emotional response and coping strategies used, c) the relationship between emotions and coping strategy selection, d) influential factors in clinicians' responses, and e) perceptions of organizational support. Methods: A cross-sectional, cross-country survey of 265 physicians and nurses was undertaken in 2 large teaching hospitals in the United Kingdom and the United States. Results: Professional and personal disruption was reported as a result of making an error. Negative emotions were common, but positive feelings of determination, attentiveness, and alertness were also identified. Emotional response and coping strategy selection did not differ because of location or perceived harm, but responses did appear to differ by professional group; nurses in both locations reported stronger negative feelings after an error. Respondents favored problem-focused coping strategies, and associations were identified between coping strategy selection and the presence of particular emotions. Organizational support services, particularly including peers, were recognized as helpful, but fears over confidentiality may prohibit some staff from accessing these. Conclusions: Clinicians in the United Kingdom and the United States experience professional and personal disruption after an error. A number of factors may influence clinician recovery; these factors should be considered in the provision of comprehensive support programs so as to improve clinician recovery and ensure higher quality, safer patient care.
    Journal of Patient Safety 01/2013; 11(1):1. DOI:10.1097/PTS.0b013e3182979b6f · 1.49 Impact Factor
Show more