A Pilot Case Study: Diverse-Equitable-Inclusive-Empathetic Practitioners Share a Common Language

Research Objectives: To define empathy from an interprofessional perspective.

Design: This qualitative exploratory study included a pre-survey, intervention, and post-survey. Surveys were administered using Qualtrics.

Setting: Participant recruitment was purposive and included full-time, part-time, and adjunct faculty from Communication Sciences and Disorders, Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, and Social Work departments across two Radford University campuses. Participants completed the study individually and on their own time.

Participants: Fifty-seven Radford University faculty were invited, and 14 participated (RR=25%).

Interventions: Faculty were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups, an online video case or a written transcript of the same case, which included a physical therapy assistant conducting a treatment session with a patient diagnosed with dementia.

Main Outcome Measures: The pre-survey included years of practice and discipline, and the post-survey required participants to define empathy. Inductive thematic analyses were completed.

Results: All disciplines were represented with 6 participants completing the video scenario and 8 participants completing the written scenario. Participant years of practice ranged from under 5 with most having at least 15.“Empathy” definitions frequently included the terms: (a) feel; (b) quality; (c) able, and (d) understand. One OT shared, “Having empathy improves healthcare quality as the therapist develops a trusting, safe, and understanding relationship with the patient which will improve motivation to participate in therapeutic activities.” Additional definitions representative of each profession and a proposed interprofessional definition of empathy will be presented.

Conclusions: Empathy is challenging to define but necessary for a common language that promotes the health and well-being of patients and providers. Similarities and differences in the definition of empathy were observed. Differences may vary by individual or scope of practice. Additional research is recommended.

Author(s) Disclosures: None; RU IRB Reference #2022-058.