Correlation Between Resident Physician and Patient Perceptions of Empathy in the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Empathy is essential for emergency medicine physicians, impacting patient outcomes and experiences, especially in the fast-paced emergency department (ED). However, empathy often declines during medical training, negatively affecting care. Little is known about how emergency medicine trainees perceive their empathy compared to their patients. Objective: This study aimed to explore the correlation between patient perceptions of resident physician empathy and residents’ self-perceptions during ED visits. Methods: This was a prospective observational study was conducted at a Level 1 Trauma and Tertiary Care Center in the south-central U.S., using the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure. At patient disposition, ED patients rated their resident physician’s empathy, followed by residents rating their own empathy delivery. Ratings were categorized as high (>81%) or low (≤80%) empathy providers. The primary outcome was the correlation between patient and resident empathy ratings; secondary outcomes examined the effects of age, sex, and race. Results: Residents rated themselves as high empathy providers 32.6% of the time, while patients rated their residents as high empathy providers 68.5% of the time. Only 6% of interactions involved residents rating themselves as high empathy providers when patients did not. Older patients rated residents as low empathy providers slightly more often than younger patients. Differences in race and gender did not significantly impact empathy ratings. Conclusion: Our findings reveal a significant gap between resident physicians’ self-assessments of empathy and patients’ assessments, with residents often rating themselves lower than their patients did, highlighting a disconnect in self-perception among emergency medicine trainees.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".