Optimizing Psychological Safety: Using a Focus Group to Acquire Perspectives from Standardized Patients Who Identify as LGBTQ+

B. Brown, Rachel Kupferman, Bethany Rocheleau, Christine Mallar, Karissa Hannifan, Bette Gray, V. Hayes, Leah A. Mallory
{"title":"Optimizing Psychological Safety: Using a Focus Group to Acquire Perspectives from Standardized Patients Who Identify as LGBTQ+","authors":"B. Brown, Rachel Kupferman, Bethany Rocheleau, Christine Mallar, Karissa Hannifan, Bette Gray, V. Hayes, Leah A. Mallory","doi":"10.46804/2641-2225.1158","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Gender and sexual minority (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning; LGBTQ+) patients report poor health care experiences, partly because health care providers are not trained to meet their needs. Simulation can help learners practice competencies related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, but there are psychological safety considerations when recruiting standardized patients (SPs). Our objective was to incorporate the expertise of members of the LGBTQ+ community in our SP pool as we developed related curriculum. Methods: All SPs were invited to participate in a focus group if they identified as LGBTQ+ and wanted to contribute. Content experts developed a focus group guide and facilitated the meeting. Additional members of the research team took de-identified notes. After notes were reviewed for agreement, a thematic analysis was performed. An anonymous survey was sent to SP participants after the focus group meeting. Results: Six SPs verbally participated in a 90-minute focus group, and 4 completed an anonymous follow-up survey. SPs acknowledged psychological safety risks but universally supported the developing curriculum. Most were willing to assume personal risk for the greater good. They emphasized the importance of lived experience to authentic portrayal, but they were open to eventual broader casting with coaching and proposed SP peer support and learner preparation as possible protective measures. Discussion: SPs appreciated the recognition of content expertise and opportunity to influence curricular design. They shared concerns about LGBTQ+ SP self-portrayal in simulation and offered creative suggestions to promote psychological safety. Conclusion: SPs with lived experience can share nuanced feedback and be a resource to co-create curriculum related to diversity, equity, and inclusion.","PeriodicalId":93781,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Maine Medical Center","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Maine Medical Center","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46804/2641-2225.1158","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: Gender and sexual minority (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning; LGBTQ+) patients report poor health care experiences, partly because health care providers are not trained to meet their needs. Simulation can help learners practice competencies related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, but there are psychological safety considerations when recruiting standardized patients (SPs). Our objective was to incorporate the expertise of members of the LGBTQ+ community in our SP pool as we developed related curriculum. Methods: All SPs were invited to participate in a focus group if they identified as LGBTQ+ and wanted to contribute. Content experts developed a focus group guide and facilitated the meeting. Additional members of the research team took de-identified notes. After notes were reviewed for agreement, a thematic analysis was performed. An anonymous survey was sent to SP participants after the focus group meeting. Results: Six SPs verbally participated in a 90-minute focus group, and 4 completed an anonymous follow-up survey. SPs acknowledged psychological safety risks but universally supported the developing curriculum. Most were willing to assume personal risk for the greater good. They emphasized the importance of lived experience to authentic portrayal, but they were open to eventual broader casting with coaching and proposed SP peer support and learner preparation as possible protective measures. Discussion: SPs appreciated the recognition of content expertise and opportunity to influence curricular design. They shared concerns about LGBTQ+ SP self-portrayal in simulation and offered creative suggestions to promote psychological safety. Conclusion: SPs with lived experience can share nuanced feedback and be a resource to co-create curriculum related to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
优化心理安全:使用焦点小组获取来自LGBTQ+标准化患者的观点
性别和性少数群体(女同性恋,男同性恋,双性恋,变性人,质疑者;LGBTQ+)患者报告说,他们的卫生保健经历很差,部分原因是卫生保健提供者没有接受过满足他们需求的培训。模拟可以帮助学习者练习与多样性、公平性和包容性相关的能力,但在招募标准化患者(SPs)时需要考虑心理安全问题。我们的目标是在开发相关课程时,将LGBTQ+社区成员的专业知识纳入我们的SP池。方法:邀请所有被认定为LGBTQ+并希望做出贡献的SPs参加焦点小组。内容专家制定了焦点小组指南,并为会议提供了便利。研究小组的其他成员也记下了不具名的笔记。在审查了说明以取得一致意见后,进行了专题分析。焦点小组会议后,向SP参与者发送了一份匿名调查。结果:6名SPs口头参与了90分钟的焦点小组,4名完成了匿名随访调查。SPs承认心理安全风险,但普遍支持开发课程。大多数人愿意为了更大的利益承担个人风险。他们强调了生活经验对真实描绘的重要性,但他们对最终更广泛的选择持开放态度,并建议SP同伴支持和学习者准备作为可能的保护措施。讨论:SPs对内容专业知识的认可和影响课程设计的机会表示赞赏。他们分享了对LGBTQ+ SP在模拟中的自我塑造的担忧,并提出了创造性的建议,以促进心理安全。结论:具有生活经验的sp可以分享细微的反馈,并成为共同创建与多样性,公平和包容性相关的课程的资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Hepatitis A Cases on the Rise and What Can Be Done About It 2024 MITE Teaching Awards Geographic Distribution of Melanoma Cases in Maine: Identifying Vulnerable Counties for Targeted Intervention MITE Monthly Tip January 2024 Letting the Learner Lead: Utilizing the SNAPPS method for outpatient teaching MITE Monthly Tip February 2024 Audience Response Systems
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1