Assessing Patients' Perceptions of Clinician Communication: Acceptability of Brief Point-of-Care Surveys in Primary Care.
communication
decision-making
patient-centered care
primary care
Journal
Journal of general internal medicine
ISSN: 1525-1497
Titre abrégé: J Gen Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8605834
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
received:
20
12
2019
accepted:
15
07
2020
pubmed:
5
8
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
5
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Improving patient-centered (PC) communication is a priority in many healthcare organizations. Most PC communication metrics are distal to the care encounter and lack clear attribution, thereby reducing relevance for leaders and clinicians. We assessed the acceptability of measuring PC communication at the point-of-care. A brief patient survey was conducted immediately post-primary care appointments at one Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Audit-feedback reports were created for clinicians and discussed in qualitative interviews. A total of 485 patients completed the survey. Thirteen interviews were conducted with clinicians and hospital leaders. Measures included collaboRATE (a 3-item tool measuring PC communication), a question about how well needs were met, and overall visit satisfaction. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to characterize the mean and distribution of collaboRATE scores and determine the proportion of patients giving clinicians a "top score" on each item. Associations among responses were examined. Interviews focused on the value of measuring PC communication and were analyzed using a framework approach. The proportion of patients giving PC communication "top scores" ranged from 41 to 92% for 16 clinicians who had ≥ 25 completed surveys. Among patients who gave "top scores" for PC communication, the odds of reporting that needs were "completely met" were 10.8 times higher (p < .001) and the odds of reporting being "very satisfied" with their care were 13.3 times higher (p < .001) compared with patients who did not give "top scores." Interviewees found clinician-specific feedback useful; concerns included prioritizing this data when other measures are used to evaluate clinicians' performance. Difficulties improving PC communication given organizational structures were noted. Recommendations for interventions included peer-to-peer education and mentoring by top-scoring clinicians. Assessing provider communication at the point-of-care is acceptable and useful to clinicians. Challenges remain to properly incentivize and support the use of this data for improving PC communication.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Improving patient-centered (PC) communication is a priority in many healthcare organizations. Most PC communication metrics are distal to the care encounter and lack clear attribution, thereby reducing relevance for leaders and clinicians.
OBJECTIVE
We assessed the acceptability of measuring PC communication at the point-of-care.
DESIGN
A brief patient survey was conducted immediately post-primary care appointments at one Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Audit-feedback reports were created for clinicians and discussed in qualitative interviews.
PARTICIPANTS
A total of 485 patients completed the survey. Thirteen interviews were conducted with clinicians and hospital leaders.
MAIN MEASURE(S)
Measures included collaboRATE (a 3-item tool measuring PC communication), a question about how well needs were met, and overall visit satisfaction. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to characterize the mean and distribution of collaboRATE scores and determine the proportion of patients giving clinicians a "top score" on each item. Associations among responses were examined. Interviews focused on the value of measuring PC communication and were analyzed using a framework approach.
KEY RESULTS
The proportion of patients giving PC communication "top scores" ranged from 41 to 92% for 16 clinicians who had ≥ 25 completed surveys. Among patients who gave "top scores" for PC communication, the odds of reporting that needs were "completely met" were 10.8 times higher (p < .001) and the odds of reporting being "very satisfied" with their care were 13.3 times higher (p < .001) compared with patients who did not give "top scores." Interviewees found clinician-specific feedback useful; concerns included prioritizing this data when other measures are used to evaluate clinicians' performance. Difficulties improving PC communication given organizational structures were noted. Recommendations for interventions included peer-to-peer education and mentoring by top-scoring clinicians.
CONCLUSIONS
Assessing provider communication at the point-of-care is acceptable and useful to clinicians. Challenges remain to properly incentivize and support the use of this data for improving PC communication.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32748346
doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06062-z
pii: 10.1007/s11606-020-06062-z
pmc: PMC7572926
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2990-2999Subventions
Organisme : VA
ID : PPO 17-062
Pays : United States
Références
Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press; 2001.
Epstein RM, Street RL. The Values and Value of Patient-Centered Care. Ann Fam Med 2011;9(2):100-3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1239
doi: 10.1370/afm.1239
pubmed: 21403134
pmcid: 3056855
Epstein RM, Franks P, Fiscella K, et al. Measuring patient-centered communication in patient-physician consultations: theoretical and practical issues. Soc Sci Med 2005;61(7):1516-28. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.02.001
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.02.001
pubmed: 16005784
Franks P, Jerant AF, Fiscella K, Shields CG, Tancredi DJ, Epstein RM. Studying physician effects on patient outcomes: Physician interactional style and performance on quality of care indicators. Soc Sci Med 2006;62(2):422-32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.05.027
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.05.027
pubmed: 15993531
Barr PJ, Thompson R, Walsh T, Grande SW, Ozanne EM, Elwyn G. The psychometric properties of CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of the shared decision-making process. J Med Internet Res 2014;16(1):e2. doi: https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3085
doi: 10.2196/jmir.3085
pubmed: 24389354
pmcid: 3906697
Elwyn G, Barr PJ, Grande SW, Thompson R, Walsh T, Ozanne EM. Developing CollaboRATE: A fast and frugal patient-reported measure of shared decision making in clinical encounters. Patient Educ Couns 2013;93(1):102-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.05.009
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.05.009
pubmed: 23768763
Makoul G, Krupat E, Chang C-H. Measuring patient views of physician communication skills: Development and testing of the Communication Assessment Tool. Patient Educ Couns 2007;67(3):333-42. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.05.005
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.05.005
pubmed: 17574367
Meterko MM, Radwin LE, Bokhour BG. Measuring Patient-Centered Care: A Brief Measure for Use in Point-of-Care Assessments (White Paper). 2015.
DiRocco DN, Day SC. Obtaining patient feedback at point of service using electronic kiosks. Am J Manag Care 2011;17(7):e270-6.
pubmed: 21819174
LaVela SL, Gallan AS. Evaluation and measurement of patient experience. Patient Exp J 2014;1(1):28-36.
Madson MB, Loignon AC, Lane C. Training in motivational interviewing: a systematic review. J Subst Abus Treat 2009;36(1):101-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2008.05.005
doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2008.05.005
Söderlund LL, Madson MB, Rubak S, Nilsen P. A systematic review of motivational interviewing training for general health care practitioners. Patient Educ Couns 2011;84(1):16-26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.06.025
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.06.025
pubmed: 20667432
Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012(6):CD000259. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub3
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub3
Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, O’Brien MA, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006(2):Cd000259. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub2
Rao JK, Anderson LA, Inui TS, Frankel RM. Communication interventions make a difference in conversations between physicians and patients: a systematic review of the evidence. Med Care 2007;45(4):340-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000254516.04961.d5
doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000254516.04961.d5
pubmed: 17496718
Hysong SJ, Best RG, Pugh JA. Audit and feedback and clinical practice guideline adherence: making feedback actionable. Implement Sci 2006;1:9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-1-9
doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-1-9
pubmed: 16722539
pmcid: 1479835
Mailhot J Improving Patient Care in a More Timely Manner at Veteran’s Administration (VA): Healthcare Systems Through the Use of Instant Survey Systems [Capstone in Health Informatics]. San Diego, California: National University; 2016.
Street RL, Jr., Mazor KM. Clinician-patient communication measures: drilling down into assumptions, approaches, and analyses. Patient Educ Couns 2017;100(8):1612-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2017.03.021
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.03.021
pubmed: 28359660
Elwyn G collaboRATE. http://www.glynelwyn.com/collaborate.html . Accessed 7 Nov 2019.
Bowen DJ, Kreuter M, Spring B, et al. How we design feasibility studies. Am J Prev Med 2009;36(5):452-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.002
doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.002
pubmed: 19362699
pmcid: 19362699
Barr PJ, Forcino RC, Thompson R, et al. Evaluating CollaboRATE in a clinical setting: analysis of mode effects on scores, response rates and costs of data collection. BMJ Open 2017;7(3):e014681. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014681
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014681
pubmed: 28341691
pmcid: 5372080
Kushniruk A, Patel V, Cimino JJ, Barrows RA. Cognitive evaluation of the user interface and vocabulary of an outpatient information system. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp 1996:22-6.
Enders CK, Tofighi D. Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: a new look at an old issue. Psychol Methods 2007;12(2):121-38. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.12.2.121
doi: 10.1037/1082-989x.12.2.121
pubmed: 17563168
NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Version 12, 2018 ed: QSR International Pty Ltd.; 2018.
Ritchie J, Spencer L. Chapter 9: Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Burgess RG, Bryman A, editors. Analyzing qualitative data. London: Routledge; 1994: 173-94.
doi: 10.4324/9780203413081_chapter_9
Institute for Healthcare Improvement, IHI Leadership Alliance. New Rules for Radical Redesign of Health Care. http://www.ihi.org/Engage/collaboratives/LeadershipAlliance/Documents/IHILeadershipAlliance_NewRulesRadicalRedesign.pdf . Accessed 21 Aug 2019.
Gaudet T, Kligler B. Whole Health in the Whole System of the Veterans Administration: How Will We Know We Have Reached This Future State? J Altern Complement Med 2019;25(S1):S7-S11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2018.29061.gau
doi: 10.1089/acm.2018.29061.gau
pubmed: 30870023
Yarnall KS, Pollak KI, Ostbye T, Krause KM, Michener JL. Primary care: is there enough time for prevention? Am J Public Health 2003;93(4):635-41. doi: https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.93.4.635
doi: 10.2105/ajph.93.4.635
pubmed: 12660210
pmcid: 1447803
Bokhour BG, Cutrona SL. Time to Listen More and Talk Less. J Gen Intern Med 2019;34(1):1-2. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4711-4
doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4711-4
pubmed: 30402817
Street RL, Jr., Liu L, Farber NJ, et al. Keystrokes, Mouse Clicks, and Gazing at the Computer: How Physician Interaction with the EHR Affects Patient Participation. J Gen Intern Med 2018;33(4):423-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-017-4228-2
doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-4228-2
pubmed: 29188544
Allikmets S, Vink JP. The benefits of peer-led teaching in medical education. Adv Med Educ Pract 2016;7:329-30. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/amep.S107776
doi: 10.2147/amep.S107776
pubmed: 27329077
pmcid: 4896465
Eisen S, Sukhani S, Brightwell A, Stoneham S, Long A. Peer mentoring: evaluation of a novel programme in paediatrics. Arch Dis Child 2014;99(2):142-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2013-304277
doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-304277
pubmed: 24152570
Palter VN, Beyfuss KA, Jokhio AR, Ryzynski A, Ashamalla S. Peer coaching to teach faculty surgeons an advanced laparoscopic skill: A randomized controlled trial. Surgery 2016;160(5):1392-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.04.032
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.04.032
pubmed: 27302101
Richer M-C, Ritchie J, Marchionni C. Appreciative inquiry in health care. Br J Healthc Manag. 2010;16:164-72. doi: https://doi.org/10.12968/bjhc.2010.16.4.47399
doi: 10.12968/bjhc.2010.16.4.47399
Carter CA, Ruhe MC, Weyer S, Litaker D, Fry RE, Stange KC. An appreciative inquiry approach to practice improvement and transformative change in health care settings. Qual Manag Health Care 2007;16(3):194-204. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.Qmh.0000281055.15177.79
doi: 10.1097/01.Qmh.0000281055.15177.79
pubmed: 17627214
Havens DS, Wood SO, Leeman J. Improving nursing practice and patient care: building capacity with appreciative inquiry. J Nurs Adm 2006;36(10):463-70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005110-200610000-00007
doi: 10.1097/00005110-200610000-00007
pubmed: 17035881
Ware JE, Jr., Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30(6):473-83.
doi: 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002