Challenging the myth of the attrition of empathy in paediatrics residents

Do I care for you more when you really need help? An experimental test of the effect of clinical urgency on compassion in health care

OBJECTIVES

To experimentally investigate whether more urgent patient presentations elicit greater compassion from health care professionals than less urgent, facilitating future research and thinking to address systemic barriers to compassion in health care.

DESIGN

This is a pre-registered online study with an experimental, within-subjects repeated-measure study design. Two clinical vignettes that systematically varied the urgency of patient presentation were utilized. Both vignettes depicted a patient with difficult behaviours typically associated with lower compassion.

METHODS

Health care professionals (doctors, nurses and allied health practitioners) recruited from all 20 District Health Boards across Aotearoa/New Zealand completed two vignettes in a counterbalanced order. Paired-sample t-tests were used to test the effect of the presentation urgency on indices of compassion.

RESULTS

A total of 939 participants completed the vignettes (20% doctors, 47%, nurses and 33% allied health professionals). As expected, participants reported greater care and motivation to help the more urgent patient. However, the more urgent patient was also perceived as less difficult, and exploratory analyses showed that perceived patient difficulty was associated with lower caring and motivation to help, particularly in the less urgent patient.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first work to experimentally test the relationship between the urgency of patient presentation and compassion in health care. Although the association between urgency and difficulty is complex, our findings are consonant with evolutionary views in which urgent distress elicits greater compassion. A system-wide orientation towards efficiency and urgency may exacerbate this 'bias' which must be addressed to ensure more equitable compassion in health care.

Predictors of Physician Compassion, Empathy, and Related Constructs: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Compassion in healthcare provides measurable benefits to patients, physicians, and healthcare systems. However, data regarding the factors that predict care (and a lack of care) are scattered. This study systematically reviews biomedical literature within the Transactional Model of Physician Compassion and synthesizes evidence regarding the predictors of physician empathy, compassion, and related constructs (ECRC).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, OvidJournals, ProQuest, Web of Science, and Scopus using search terms relating to ECRC and its predictors. Eligible studies included physicians as participants. Methodological quality was assessed based on the Cochrane Handbook, using ROBINS-I risk of bias tool for quantitative and CASP for qualitative studies. Confidence in findings was evaluated according to GRADE-CERQual approach.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-two included studies (74,866 physicians) highlighted the diversity of influences on compassion in healthcare (54 unique predictors). Physician-related predictors (88%) were gender, experience, values, emotions and coping strategies, quality of life, and burnout. Environmental predictors (38%) were organizational structure, resources, culture, and clinical environment and processes. Patient-related predictors (24%) were communication ease, and physicians' perceptions of patients' motives; compassion was also less forthcoming with lower SES and minority patients. Evidence related to clinical predictors (15%) was scarce; high acuity presentations predicted greater ECRC.

DISCUSSION

The growth of evidence in the recent years reflects ECRC's ongoing importance. However, evidence remains scattered, concentrates on physicians' factors that may not be amenable to interventions, lacks designs permitting causal commentary, and is limited by self-reported outcomes. Inconsistent findings in the direction of the predictors' effects indicate the need to study the relationships among predictors to better understand the mechanisms of ECRCs. The current review can guide future research and interventions.