[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

How Should Clinicians Ally With Patients Whose Health Is Unlikely to Be Improved by Even Numerous Clinical Encounters?

Learning Objectives
1. Explain a new or unfamiliar viewpoint on a topic of ethical or professional conduct
2. Evaluate the usefulness of this information for health care practice, teaching, or conduct
3. Decide whether and when to apply the new information to health care practice, teaching, or conduct
1 Credit CME
Abstract

Patients experiencing homelessness and mental illness face conditions and circumstances that deserve focused ethical and clinical attention. The first commentary on the case applies insights from qualitative research about social determinants of health to these patients' care and dignity. The second commentary describes 3 kinds of power wielded by physicians—charismatic, social, and Aesculapian—each of which is considered in terms of whether and to what extent physicians' power should be owned, aimed, or shared.

Case

JJ is a 27-year-old man with schizophrenia, who is brought to the clinic by staff members from a local shelter. JJ does not adhere well to his antipsychotic medication, has experienced several inpatient psychiatric civil commitments and other encounters with numerous clinicians in the region's health care system, and does not have reliable access to shelter, food, water, or hygiene. You, JJ's caregiver in the clinic right now, empathize with him, staff from the shelter, and others trying to help JJ avoid poor health outcomes for which he is at such high risk.

You refilled JJ's medication and reviewed his laboratory values, but you know there is little you can do for JJ that can counter the myriad and well-known social determinants undermining the effectiveness of even the most skilled intervention any clinician could offer JJ during a clinical encounter. You wonder how to make the most of this moment you have with JJ on his life journey.

Commentary 1

by Adam T. Perzynski, PhD

Recent years have seen dramatically increasing levels of health care system interest and investment in addressing social factors in primary care.1,2 Some of this interest is driven by growing recognition of the immense financial expense and squandered human potential associated with social inequity in examination rooms.3,4Quiz Ref IDSocial needs screening, referral, and coordination among social service organizations have demonstrated potential to fill some social care gaps in primary care settings.511 However, the number of patients helped by these interventions is still somewhat limited. For example, one study found that, of 848 patients screened who had food insecurity and wished to be contacted, 98 (12%) had their referrals ultimately resolved by a local food bank.11 Other work has further exposed the need for improved communications with patients12 and the severe limitations of high throughput workflows.8,13 An entire industry of startup companies and entrepreneurs is developing technologies around the promise of integrated care for patients with unmet social needs,14 but health technology for this purpose needs to further reinforce solidarity and shared well-being.

JJ seems very familiar to health workers; the social, psychological, and disease challenges faced by the most vulnerable patients cared for in clinics, hospitals, and emergency rooms are daunting. Beneath the snapshot of his clinical encounters is a rich personal history involving relationships, events, places, passions, and the vicissitudes of life's fortunes and misfortunes. Present, but possibly not accounted for, are JJ's personal triumphs and tragedies. Quiz Ref IDJJ's case helped me to reflect on my 2 decades of work with colleagues conducting qualitative interviews and listening closely to the concerns of persons who have various combinations of serious mental and physical health challenges.1422 I've talked with baseball fans about their diabetes control and the staggering weight gain they had from their antipsychotic medications.20,21 Men who love yoga and meditation shared with us their fears and personal struggles after having a stroke.15,16 Medications that caused weight gain or fatigue meant they could not lift what they needed to or stay awake and alert enough to make it through an 8-hour night security shift in the warehouse.16 My own and others' research has found that patients' not taking medicine was occasionally due to clinical care teams' affronts to their personhood or patients' suspicion that prescribers' motives were financial rather than beneficent.15,2225

How Stillness Moves Us Toward Solidarity

Quiz Ref IDThe stillness of a medical encounter in some ways is not still at all; time is short in busy clinics. Private talk about deeply personal needs, however briefly, can move our encounters with patients—especially those experiencing homelessness—beyond the often morally hazardous conditions on the outside of the examination room toward solidarity. Stillness can move us toward trust and the health benefits of trusted relationships. Even steep barriers to trust in clinical encounters can be surmounted with the simplest of “common ground” approaches—simply finding out what we share with one another.26 When our experiences and those of the people we serve do not align, we can maintain solidarity with their suffering and offer our love.27

Quiz Ref IDI remember an interview with a woman experiencing homelessness who told me about how she was raped the first night she had to sleep in a bus shelter. This woman's story came as a shock to me; I had simply asked her a question about why it was sometimes difficult to take her medicine for her bipolar disorder. Sometimes it just wasn't a high priority, she explained. Days before our conversation, she had received 3 new sets of clothes from a church group, but the clothes, the bag they were in, and her medicine were stolen at the shelter. She explained that she wanted to take her medicine, but she didn't always have it with her.

We felt solidarity in that particular moment because both of us felt ashamed, powerless, and a bit broken. Both of us were glad to have someone to talk to within the gray, air-conditioned walls of the clinical research unit, but nonetheless we experienced the fear and the trauma of those events—I, vicariously—when just talking about them. It's through this lens that I write with concern for JJ and what will happen to him and others in our tightly choreographed systems of social care. The social needs screening questions used at MetroHealth ask:

  1. Have you worried your food would run out before you had money to buy more?

  2. Were you unable to pay the rent on time?

  3. Have you been humiliated or emotionally abused by your partner?

Quiz Ref IDQualitative inquiry has found that patients are generally appreciative of the opportunity to fill in the care team and possibly receive assistance with some of their needs.28 Nonetheless, some vulnerabilities are so overwhelming that our patients struggle to contain their tears before they finish answering even one of the questions. The tables and figures on the social determinants of health can seem like a disservice to the truth of the challenges faced by our patients. How can we confront these challenges while preserving the dignity of patients like JJ? At times I'm frustrated with the safe, climate-controlled halls of the health care system, having commuted from the suburbs and a house with an overflowing pantry. As others have pointedly asked29,30: Who is this safe setting really for? I hope JJ feels safe in the clinic. I want him to. If he were my patient, I would consider whether I'd asked him lately how he feels about this place and his experiences here. JJ's case and every encounter with a vulnerable patient can be viewed as an opportune reminder for all members of clinical teams to anchor their efforts to meet instrumental health and social needs in a foundation of interpersonal, narrative humility and an unwavering respect for dignity.

Commentary 2

by Kurt C. Stange, MD, PhD

One of the most gratifying clinical teaching encounters is when a resident raises the exasperated question, “Why does this patient keep coming back to see me? I'm not doing anything for him!” So many clinical teaching episodes, like the clinical encounters they mirror, are transactional—linking symptoms and signs to diagnoses and using those diagnoses to launch evidence-based treatments. Those evidence-based treatments are based on the average effects of treatments in clinical trials in which selection and randomization make individual differences and social context inapparent to allow us to focus on a single factor.31,32

But, like JJ's schizophrenia, which is exacerbated by medication nonadherence for a complex mix of reasons, most health problems aren't caused by a single factor. The causes of suffering, disease, and illness—and even explanations of opportunities for healing—are multifactorial and multilevel, from the molecular to the societal.33,34 Our efforts to put people's problems in neat little boxes give us a sense of control that often is out of touch with the complex contexts of people's lives and the possibilities for care that extend beyond delivering “commodities” of narrow diagnoses and treatments to the possibility of holistic healing.35

We should be aware of what our patients do and don't want from us. Patients do not come to serve as data for quality and performance metrics that sometimes provide useful guidance but often serve to financially incentivize us and to wrest control of our motivations to be personal physicians and healers.36,37 Moreover, patients do not come to gratify our egos as healers. For many patient conditions, we do not provide a cure; many patients coming to hospitals and to primary care, especially those age 45 and older, have multiple chronic illnesses of which we are witnesses and that we help palliate.34,38 In talking about healing, patients say that they would like a cure, if possible, but when that is not possible, they want someone to stick with them on the journey.39 They want someone to help them to transcend their suffering.40

Fostering Healing

In analyses of in-depth interviews of physicians identified as excellent healers on the basis of their scholarship, reputation, and awards and of their patients thought to have experienced healing,41 my colleagues and I discovered that healing relationships require certain competencies in the physician: self-confidence, emotional self-management, mindfulness, and knowledge. Healing relationships also embody practices of valuing, being present, sharing power, and abiding. Valuing means actively appreciating patients in a nonjudgmental manner, regardless of their level of functioning, social situation, ethnicity, or life circumstances; such appreciation adds value to care over time, even when the care is ostensibly “futile.” Being present means paying caring attention, witnessing, and empathizing with patients' suffering and joy. Sharing power means respecting patients as experts about themselves and leveraging trust and respect to encourage changes that support patients' health. Abiding means sticking with patients, providing continuity of caring over time, accompanying patients during crises, and ensuring that patients know we will not give up on them even if we are not able to provide a cure.

Enacting these competencies and healing practices leads to relational outcomes of hope, trust, and a sense of being known.41 Healing practices impart a sense of stillness and solidarity within and between practitioners and patients.42,43 Martin Buber described these kinds of connections as “I-Thou” relationships,44 which are characterized by dialogue and mutuality and fundamental to healing; such relationships contrast to “I-It” relationships, which aptly apply to commercialized, commoditized, impersonal features of US health care.45

With my colleagues, I have conducted further analyses of the interviews used to identify the competencies and healing practices, which show that patients' healing journey is full of stops and starts.46 In the middle, it often looks like a failure. But through personal and relational persistence, patients who have a sense of safety and trust can move from being wounded and suffering to developing diverse healing relationships based on kindness and unconditional love. This experience leads to reframing of suffering, taking appropriate responsibility for healing, and positivity that sometimes help the person to transcend their suffering and circumstances and find meaning, purpose, and often generativity, or the emergence of interconnections between relationships and resources that foster hope and “a sense of wholeness and integrity that constitutes healing.”46

Higher levels of care that involve integrating and prioritizing care, abiding, and assisting in transcendence of suffering47 are neither recognized nor supported by the current organization of health care, which measures and supports basic care of acute and chronic disease, preventive service delivery, and mental health care. Our fragmented, depersonalized, greed-driven system actively works against providing these higher levels of care.35,48 The mismatch between what clinicians know we can do to help people in a relationship over time and how we are organized, rewarded, and punished in the current reductionist, commodified health care system is a major source of moral distress and burnout for clinicians and of loneliness, fear, and despair for vulnerable patients.4953 My colleagues and I have recently developed a patient-report measure based on careful analysis of what patients and clinicians say is important in health care.54 Such a measure can be used to refocus the attention of clinicians, patients, and the health care system on what matters.

Understanding and Using Physicians' Power

Howard Brody identifies 3 kinds of physician power: charismatic (based on personal characteristics, such as character and charisma), social (based on our societal and community status), and Aesculapian (based on our knowledge of medicine). He asks us to consider whether our power is owned, aimed, or shared.55 As physicians, we can engage in personal reflective practices42,43 and share our power with patients by abiding as witnesses45,46,56,57 and being available for teachable moments when healing is possible.5860 We can own our larger professional responsibility to address societal inequities that cause illness and suffering.61 We can band together in professionalism6264 rather than in narrow self-interest to work toward a system that invests in relationships, measures what matters,37,54 and supports healing and health.65,66

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

The AMA Journal of Ethics exists to help medical students, physicians and all health care professionals navigate ethical decisions in service to patients and society. The journal publishes cases and expert commentary, medical education articles, policy discussions, peer-reviewed articles for journal-based, video CME, audio CME, visuals, and more. Learn more

Article Information

AMA Journal of Ethics

AMA J Ethics. 2022;24(12):E1112-1120.

AMA CME Accreditation Information

Credit Designation Statement: The American Medical Association designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

CME Disclosure Statement: Unless noted, all individuals in control of content reported no relevant financial relationships.

If applicable, all relevant financial relationships have been mitigated.

Editor's Note

The case to which this commentary is a response was developed by the editorial staff.

Acknowledgements: Dr Stange's work is supported by the Wisdom of Practice Initiative (funded by the University Suburban Health Center Foundation) and by a Distinguished Scholar Fellowship from the American Board of Family Medicine Foundation.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Dr Perzynski is co-founder of Global Health Metrics and has book royalty agreements with Taylor & Francis and Springer Nature publishers. Dr Stange had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The people and events in this case are fictional. Resemblance to real events or to names of people, living or dead, is entirely coincidental. The viewpoints expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the AMA.

Author Information:

  • Adam T. Perzynski, PhD is an associate professor of medicine and sociology in the Population Health Research Institute at MetroHealth and Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. His work focuses on mixed methods research approaches to eliminating inequitable health outcomes; Kurt C. Stange, MD, PhD is a family and public health physician who serves as director of the Center for Community Health Integration at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. He is active in multimethod, participatory research and development that aims to improve primary care, health equity, and population health.

References:
1.
Adler  NE, Stead  WW.  Routinely capturing social and behavioral determinants of health in electronic health records.  New Engl J Med. 2015;372(8):698–701.Google ScholarCrossref
2.
Gottlieb  LM, Tirozzi  KJ, Manchanda  R, Burns  AR, Sandel  MT.  Moving electronic medical records upstream: incorporating social determinants of health.  Am J Prev Med. 2015;48(2):215–218.Google ScholarCrossref
3.
Bibbins-Domingo  K.  Integrating social care into the delivery of health care.  JAMA. 2019;322(18):1763–1764.Google ScholarCrossref
4.
Marshall  GL, Kahana  E, Gallo  WT, Stansbury  KL, Thielke  S.  The price of mental well-being in later life: the role of financial hardship and debt.  Aging Ment Health. 2021;25(7):1338–1344.Google ScholarCrossref
5.
Garg  A, Jack  B, Zuckerman  B.  Addressing the social determinants of health within the patient-centered medical home: lessons from pediatrics.  JAMA. 2013;309(19):2001–2002.Google ScholarCrossref
6.
LaForge  K, Gold  R, Cottrell  E,  et al.  How 6 organizations developed tools and processes for social determinants of health screening in primary care: an overview.  J Ambul Care Manage. 2018;41(1):2–14.Google ScholarCrossref
7.
Byhoff  E, Cohen  AJ, Hamati  MC, Tatko  J, Davis  MM, Tipirneni  R.  Screening for social determinants of health in Michigan health centers.  J Am Board Fam Med. 2017;30(4):418–427.Google ScholarCrossref
8.
Gold  R, Bunce  A, Cowburn  S,  et al.  Adoption of social determinants of health EHR tools by community health centers.  Ann Fam Med. 2018;16(5):399–407.Google ScholarCrossref
9.
Buitron de la Vega  P, Losi  S, Sprague Martinez  L,  et al.  Implementing an EHR-based screening and referral system to address social determinants of health in primary care.  Med Care. 2019;57(6)(suppl 2):S133–S139.Google Scholar
10.
Misak  J, Frech  R, Chagin  KM, Perzynski  AT, Berg  KA.  Implementing a hospital-based social needs referral system during COVID-19: combat food insecurity and social isolation.  Ohio Fam Physician. 2021;81:24–25.Google Scholar
11.
Chagin  K, Choate  F, Cook  K, Fuehrer  S, Misak  JE, Sehgal  AR.  A framework for evaluating social determinants of health screening and referrals for assistance.  J Prim Care Community Health. 2021;12:21501327211052204.Google ScholarCrossref
12.
Wallace  AS, Luther  B, Guo  JW, Wang  CY, Sisler  S, Wong  B.  Implementing a social determinants screening and referral infrastructure during routine emergency department visits, Utah, 2017-2018.  Prev Chronic Dis. 2020;17:E45.Google ScholarCrossref
13.
Berry  C, Paul  M, Massar  R, Marcello  RK, Krauskopf  M.  Social needs screening and referral program at a large US public hospital system, 2017.  Am J Public Health. 2020;110(suppl 2):S211–S214.Google Scholar
14.
Blixen  C, Levin  JB, Cassidy  KA, Perzynski  AT, Sajatovic  M.  Coping strategies used by poorly adherent patients for self-managing bipolar disorder.  Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:1327–1335.Google ScholarCrossref
15.
Bibbins-Domingo  K.  Integrating social care into the delivery of health care.  JAMA. 2019;322(18):1763–1764.Google ScholarCrossref
16.
Perzynski  A, Blixen  C, Cage  J, Colón-Zimmermann  K, Sajatovic  M.  Informing policy for reducing stroke health disparities from the experience of African-American male stroke survivors.  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2016;3(3):527–536.Google ScholarCrossref
17.
Blixen  C, Perzynski  A, Cage  J,  et al.  Using focus groups to inform the development of stroke recovery and prevention programs for younger African-American (AA) men.  Top Stroke Rehabil. 2015;22(3):221–230.Google ScholarCrossref
18.
Blixen  C, Perzynski  A, Cage  J,  et al.  Stroke recovery and prevention barriers among young African-American men: potential avenues to reduce health disparities.  Top Stroke Rehabil. 2014;21(5):432–442.Google ScholarCrossref
19.
Sajatovic  M, Dawson  NV, Perzynski  AT,  et al.  Best practices: optimizing care for people with serious mental illness and comorbid diabetes.  Psychiatr Serv. 2011;62(9):1001–1003.Google ScholarCrossref
20.
Blixen  CE, Kanuch  S, Perzynski  AT, Thomas  C, Dawson  NV, Sajatovic  M.  Barriers to self-management of serious mental illness and diabetes.  Am J Health Behav. 2016;40(2):194–204.Google ScholarCrossref
21.
Perzynski  AT, Ramsey  RK, Colón-Zimmermann  K, Cage  J, Welter  E, Sajatovic  M.  Barriers and facilitators to epilepsy self-management for patients with physical and psychological co-morbidity.  Chronic Illn. 2017;13(3):188–203.Google ScholarCrossref
22.
Blixen  C, Perzynski  A, Kanuch  S,  et al.  Training peer educators to promote self-management skills in people with serious mental illness (SMI) and diabetes (DM) in a primary health care setting.  Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2015;16(2):127–137.Google ScholarCrossref
23.
Perzynski  A, Blixen  C, Sajatovic  M.  Where is the patient? Finding the person in patient-centered health care.  In: Perzynski  A, Shick  S, Adebambo  I, eds.  Health Disparities:Weaving a New Understanding Through Case Narratives. Springer; 2019:29–31.Google Scholar
24.
Shiyanbola  OO, Ward  E, Brown  C.  Sociocultural influences on African Americans' representations of type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study.  Ethn Dis. 2018;28(1):25–32.Google ScholarCrossref
25.
Polinski  JM, Kesselheim  AS, Frolkis  JP, Wescott  P, Allen-Coleman  C, Fischer  MA.  A matter of trust: patient barriers to primary medication adherence.  Health Educ Res. 2014;29(5):755–763.Google ScholarCrossref
26.
Nazione  S, Perrault  EK, Keating  DM.  Finding common ground: can provider-patient race concordance and self-disclosure bolster patient trust, perceptions, and intentions?  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2019;6(5):962–972.Google ScholarCrossref
27.
Kleinman  A, Van Der Geest  S.  “Care” in health care. Remaking the moral world of medicine.  Medische Antropologie. 2009;21(1):159.Google Scholar
28.
Hsu  C, Cruz  S, Placzek  H,  et al.  Patient perspectives on addressing social needs in primary care using a screening and resource referral intervention.  J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(2):481–489.Google ScholarCrossref
29.
Bourgois  P, Holmes  SM, Sue  K, Quesada  J.  Structural vulnerability: operationalizing the concept to address health disparities in clinical care.  Acad Med. 2017;92(3):299–307.Google ScholarCrossref
30.
Bourgois  P.  The moral economies of homeless heroin addicts: confronting ethnography, HIV risk, and everyday violence in San Francisco shooting encampments.  Subst Use Misuse. 1998;33(11):2323–2351.Google ScholarCrossref
31.
Fortin  M, Dionne  J, Pinho  G, Gignac  J, Almirall  J, Lapointe  L.  Randomized controlled trials: do they have external validity for patients with multiple comorbidities?  Ann Fam Med. 2006;4(2):104–108.Google ScholarCrossref
32.
Deaton  A, Cartwright  N.  Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials.  Soc Sci Med. 2018;210:2–21.Google ScholarCrossref
33.
Borrell-Carrió  F, Suchman  AL, Epstein  RM.  The biopsychosocial model 25 years later: principles, practice, and scientific inquiry.  Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(6):576–582.Google ScholarCrossref
34.
Sturmberg  JP, Getz  LO, Stange  KC, Upshur  REG, Mercer  SW.  Beyond multimorbidity: what can we learn from complexity science?  J Eval Clin Pract. 2021;27(5):1187–1193.Google ScholarCrossref
35.
Heath  I, Rubenstein  A, Stange  KC, van Driel  M.  Quality in primary health care: a multidimensional approach to complexity.  BMJ. 2009;338:b1242.Google ScholarCrossref
36.
Green  LA.  Will people have personal physicians anymore? Dr Ian McWhinney Lecture, 2017.  Can Fam Physician. 2017;63(12):909–912.Google Scholar
37.
Stange  KC, Etz  RS, Gullett  H,  et al.  Metrics for assessing improvements in primary health care.  Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35(1):423–442.Google ScholarCrossref
38.
Fortin  M, Bravo  G, Hudon  C, Vanasse  A, Lapointe  L.  Prevalence of multimorbidity among adults seen in family practice.  Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(3):223–228.Google ScholarCrossref
39.
Egnew  TR.  Suffering, meaning, and healing: challenges of contemporary medicine.  Ann Fam Med. 2009;7(2):170–175.Google ScholarCrossref
40.
Egnew  TR.  The meaning of healing: transcending suffering.  Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(3):255–262.Google ScholarCrossref
41.
Scott  JG, Cohen  D, Dicicco-Bloom  B, Miller  WL, Stange  KC, Crabtree  BF.  Understanding healing relationships in primary care.  Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(4):315–22.Google ScholarCrossref
42.
Easwaran  E.  Passage Meditation: A Complete Spiritual Practice: Train Your Mind and Find a Life That Fulfills. Nilgiri Press; 2016.
43.
Easwaran  E.  Conquest of Mind: Take Charge of Your Thoughts and Reshape Your Life Through Meditation. 3rd rev ed. Nilgiri Press; 2010.
44.
Buber  M.  I and Thou. Smith  RG, trans. 2nd ed. Charles Scribner's Sons; 1958.
45.
Scott  JG, Scott  RG, Miller  WL, Stange  KC, Crabtree  BF.  Healing relationships and the existential philosophy of Martin Buber.  Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2009;4:11.Google ScholarCrossref
46.
Scott  JG, Warber  SL, Dieppe  P, Jones  D, Stange  KC.  Healing journey: a qualitative analysis of the healing experiences of Americans suffering from trauma and illness.  BMJ Open. 2017;7(8):e016771.Google ScholarCrossref
47.
Stange  KC.  A science of connectedness.  Ann Fam Med. 2009;7(5):387–395.Google ScholarCrossref
48.
Stange  KC.  The problem of fragmentation and the need for integrative solutions.  Ann Fam Med. 2009;7(2):100–103.Google ScholarCrossref
49.
Sinsky  CA, Bavafa  H, Roberts  RG, Beasley  JW.  Standardization vs customization: finding the right balance.  Ann Fam Med. 2021;19(2):171–177.Google ScholarCrossref
50.
Edwards  ST, Marino  M, Solberg  LI,  et al.  Cultural and structural features of zero-burnout primary care practices.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2021;40(6):928–936.Google ScholarCrossref
51.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.  Taking Action Against Clinician Burnout: A Systems Approach to Professional Well-Being. National Academies Press; 2019.
52.
Heston  TF, Pahang  JA.  Moral injury or burnout?  South Med J. 2019;112(9):483.Google ScholarCrossref
53.
 80 percent of primary care physicians say their level of burnout is at an all-time high.  News release. Larry A. Green Center; June 18 , 2020. Accessed August 25, 2022. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d7ff8184cf0e01e4566cb02/t/606717481c473310b5437518/1617368905890/18June2020+Press+Release.pdfGoogle Scholar
54.
Etz  RS, Zyzanski  SJ, Gonzalez  MM, Reves  SR, O'Neal  JP, Stange  KC.  A new comprehensive measure of high-value aspects of primary care.  Ann Fam Med. 2019;17(3):221–230.Google ScholarCrossref
55.
Brody  H.  The Healer's Power. Yale University Press; 1992.
56.
Scott  JG, Cohen  D, Dicicco-Bloom  B, Miller  WL, Stange  KC, Crabtree  BF.  Understanding healing relationships in primary care.  Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(4):315–322.Google ScholarCrossref
57.
Heath  I.  The Mystery of General Practice. Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1995. Accessed August 29, 2022. https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/files/2017-01/the-mystery-of-general-practice-web-final.pdf
58.
Flocke  SA, Clark  E, Antognoli  E,  et al.  Teachable moments for health behavior change and intermediate patient outcomes.  Patient Educ Couns. 2014;96(1):43–49.Google ScholarCrossref
59.
Lawson  PJ, Flocke  SA.  Teachable moments for health behavior change: a concept analysis.  Patient Educ Couns. 2009;76(1):25–30.Google ScholarCrossref
60.
Beach  MC, Inui  T;  Relationship-Centered Care Research Network. Relationship-centered care. A constructive reframing.  J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(suppl 1):S3–S8.Google Scholar
61.
Stange  KC.  Power to advocate for health.  Ann Fam Med. 2010;8(2):100–107.Google ScholarCrossref
62.
Egener  BE, Mason  DJ, McDonald  WJ,  et al.  The charter on professionalism for health care organizations.  Acad Med. 2017;92(8):1091–1099.Google ScholarCrossref
63.
Waters  RC, Stoltenberg  M, Hughes  LS.  A countercultural heritage: rediscovering the relationship-centered and social justice roots of family medicine-a perspective from the Keystone IV Conference.  J Am Board Fam Med. 2016;29(suppl 1):S45–S48.Google Scholar
64.
Miller  WL.  Unfilled hunger: seeking relationships in primary care—a perspective from the Keystone IV Conference.  J Am Board Fam Med. 2016;29(29)(suppl 1):S19–S23.Google Scholar
65.
Montgomery  L, Loue  S, Stange  KC.  Linking the heart and the head: humanism and professionalism in medical education and practice.  Fam Med. 2017;49(5):378–383.Google Scholar
66.
Stange  K.  What a pandemic reveals about the implementation of high quality primary care.  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Accessed April 22, 2022. https://www.nap.edu/resource/25983/What%20a%20Pandemic%20Reveals%20About%20the%20Implementation%20of%20High%20Quality%20Primary%20Care.pdf
AMA CME Accreditation Information

Credit Designation Statement: The American Medical Association designates this Journal-based CME activity activity for a maximum of 1.00 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to:

  • 1.00 Medical Knowledge MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine's (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program; 
  • 1.00 Self-Assessment points in the American Board of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery’s (ABOHNS) Continuing Certification program; 
  • 1.00 MOC points in the American Board of Pediatrics’ (ABP) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program; and 
  • 1.00 Lifelong Learning points in the American Board of Pathology’s (ABPath) Continuing Certification program; 

It is the CME activity provider's responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting MOC credit.

     
Close
Close
Close
Close

Name Your Search

Save Search
Close
Close

Lookup An Activity

or

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

Close

My Saved Courses

You currently have no courses saved.

Close