Search

Background: Poor communication between referring clinicians and specialists may lead to inefficient use of specialist services. San Francisco General Hospital implemented an electronic referral system (eReferral) that facilitates iterative pre-visit communication between referring and specialty clinicians to improve the referral process.Objective: The purpose of the study was to determine the impact of eReferral (compared with paper-based referrals) on specialty referrals.Design: The study was based on a visit-based questionnaire appended to new patient charts at randomly selected specialist clinic sessions before and after the implementation of eReferral.Participants: Specialty clinicians.Main Measures: The questionnaire focused on the self-reported difficulty in identifying referral question, referral appropriateness, need for and avoidability of follow-up visits.Key Results: We collected 505 questionnaires from speciality clinicians. It was difficult to identify the reason for referral in 19.8% of medical and 38.0% of surgical visits using paper-based methods vs. 11.0% and 9.5% of those using eReferral (p-value 0.03 and <0.001). Of those using eReferral, 6.4% and 9.8% of medical and surgical referrals using paper methods vs. 2.6% and 2.1% were deemed not completely appropriate (p-value 0.21 and 0.03). Follow-up was requested for 82.4% and 76.2% of medical and surgical patients with paper-based referrals vs. 90.1% and 58.1% of eReferrals (p-value 0.06 and 0.01). Follow-up was considered avoidable for 32.4% and 44.7% of medical and surgical follow-ups with paper-based methods vs. 27.5% and 13.5% with eReferral (0.41 and <0.001).Conclusion: Use of technology to promote standardized referral processes and iterative communication between referring clinicians and specialists has the potential to improve communication between primary care providers and specialists and to increase the effectiveness of specialty referrals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The practice of clinical medicine is imbued with uncertainty. The ways in which clinicians and patients think about, communicate about, and act within situations of heightened uncertainty can have significant implications for the therapeutic alliance and for the trajectory and outcomes of clinical care. Despite this, there is limited guidance about the best methods for physicians to recognize, acknowledge, communicate about, and manage uncertainty in clinical settings. In this paper, we propose a structured approach for discussing and managing uncertainty within the context of a clinician-patient relationship. The approach involves four steps: Recognize, Acknowledge, Partner, and Seek Support (i.e., the RAPS framework). The approach is guided by existing literature on uncertainty as well as our own experience as clinicians working at different stages of career. We define each component of the approach and present sample language and actions for how to implement it in practice. Our aim is to empower clinicians to regard situations of high uncertainty as an opportunity to deepen the therapeutic alliance with the patient, and simultaneously to grow and learn as practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research into health literacy and shared decision-making has largely developed along parallel, but distinct lines over the past two decades. There is little evidence that the concepts and related practice have intersected except in the most functional way, for example, to simplify shared decision-making tools by improving readability scores of decision aids. This paper presents an integrated model to strengthen and sustain patient engagement in health care by drawing on the strengths of both concepts. This includes addressing patients' skills and capacities, alongside modifications to written and verbal information. We propose an expanded model of shared decision-making which incorporates health literacy concepts and promotes two-tiered intervention methods to improve the targeting and personalization of communication and support the development of transferable health literacy skills among patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the initial consultation with a patient to communicate a diagnosis of late-stage cancer, the oncologist may refrain from giving survival statistics, redirecting the conversation from the bad news (incurability) to the practical aspects of the patient's care (treatments, timetables, appointments, and testing to monitor response to treatment). Whether conscious or unconscious, this diversion helps cushion the impact of the disturbing news. This paper shows that clinicians' gingerly handling of harsh facts when they talk with patients also applies to health educators and researchers when they write about late-stage cancer. As a result, these cancer patients typically lack an understanding of their poor prognosis and the limited effectiveness of most available treatments, possibly compromising their ability to make informed choices. To remedy this problem, I describe an approach to straight talk about late-stage cancer that can give a patient realistic hopes instead of false hopes that are apt to betray later on. I also propose an enhanced method of displaying and interpreting comparative efficacy data that can facilitate understanding and serve as a basis for shared decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses the ways in avoiding missteps in clinical research reporting by statisticians. He is critical of the importance of several reporting guidelines including the standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy (STARD), strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE), and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). Also mentioned is the essence of using tables in presenting data results.

INTRODUCTION : The aim of this update is to summarize scientifically rigorous articles published in 2010 that serve to advance the field of palliative medicine and have an impact on clinical practice. METHOD: We conducted two separate literature searches for articles published between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010. We reviewed title pages from the Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, JAMA, Journal of Clinical Oncology, JGIM, Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, Journal of Palliative Medicine, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, PC-FACS (Fast Article Critical Summaries for Clinicians in Palliative Care). We also conducted a Medline search with the key words "palliative," "hospice," and "terminal" care. Each author presented approximately 20 abstracts to the group. All authors reviewed these abstracts, and when needed, full text publications. We focused on articles relevant to general internists. We rated the articles individually, eliminating by consensus those that were not deemed of highest priority, and discussed the final choices as a group. RESULTS: We first identified 126 articles with potential relevance. We presented 20 at the annual SGIM update session, and discuss 11 in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A recent systematic review of randomised trials suggested that empathic communication improves patient health outcomes. However, the methods for training healthcare practitioners (medical professionals; HCPs) in empathy and the empathic behaviours demonstrated within the trials were heterogeneous, making the evidence difficult to implement in routine clinical practice. In this secondary analysis of seven trials in the review, we aimed to identify (1) the methods used to train HCPs, (2) the empathy behaviours they were trained to perform and (3) behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used to encourage the adoption of those behaviours. This detailed understanding of interventions is necessary to inform implementation in clinical practice. We conducted a content analysis of intervention descriptions, using an inductive approach to identify training methods and empathy behaviours and a deductive approach to describe the BCTs used. The most commonly used methods to train HCPs to enhance empathy were face-to-face training (n = 5), role-playing (n = 3) and videos (self or model; n = 3). Duration of training was varied, with both long and short training having high effect sizes. The most frequently targeted empathy behaviours were providing explanations of treatment (n = 5), providing non-specific empathic responses (e.g. expressing understanding) and displaying a friendly manner and using non-verbal behaviours (e.g. nodding, leaning forward, n = 4). The BCT most used to encourage HCPs to adopt empathy behaviours was "Instruction on how to perform behaviour" (e.g. a video demonstration, n = 5), followed by "Credible source" (e.g. delivered by a psychologist, n = 4) and "Behavioural practice" (n = 3 e.g. role-playing). We compared the effect sizes of studies but could not extrapolate meaningful conclusions due to high levels of variation in training methods, empathy skills and BCTs. Moreover, the methods used to train HCPs were often poorly described which limits study replication and clinical implementation. This analysis of empathy training can inform future research, intervention reporting standards and clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Communication issues have been shown to contribute to healthcare errors. For years healthcare professionals have been told to "speak up." What "speak up" means is unclear, as it has been defined and operationalized in many ways. Thus, this study aimed to systematically review the literature regarding definitions and measurements of speaking up in the healthcare system and to develop a single, comprehensive definition and operationalization of the concept. Methods: PubMed, CINAHL, PsychoInfo, and Communication/Mass Media Complete databases were searched from 1999 to 2020. Publications were included if they mentioned speaking up for patient safety or any identified synonyms. Articles that used the term speaking up concerning non-health-related topics were excluded. This systematic review utilized Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: A total of 294 articles met the inclusion criteria, yet only 58 articles focused on speaking up. While the most common synonym terms identified were "speak up" and "raise concern," only 43 articles defined speaking up. Accordingly, a modified definition was developed for speaking up—A healthcare professional identifying a concern that might impact patient safety and using his or her voice to raise the concern to someone with the power to address it. Discussion: Speaking up is considered important for patient safety. Yet, there has been a lack of agreement on the definition and operationalization of speaking up. This review demonstrates that speaking up should be reconceptualized to provide a single definition for speaking up in healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical laboratory tests have no value if clinicians cannot quickly order and obtain the results they need. We found that efforts to obtain even the most commonly ordered tests are often derailed by excessively complex nomenclature. Ordering the right laboratory tests is critical to diagnosis and treatment, but existing mechanisms for entering lab orders actively interfere with physicians' efforts to provide good clinical care. Rather than simplifying lab orders, the advent of computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems-generally programmed by non-clinicians-has introduced new and vexing practical problems. Medical laboratories have filled their test menus, whether paper or electronic, with bewildering nomenclature and abbreviations, and have failed to appreciate the dangers of assigning perilously similar names to different tests. The efficient and efficacious patient care demanded by the quality care initiative requires progress beyond traditional solutions, such as convening naming conventions, to the development of innovative software with intelligent, real-time, clinically driven search functions that will allow these programs to help rather than hinder physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A Complex Chronic Disease (CCD) is a condition involving multiple morbidities that requires the attention of multiple health care providers or facilities and possibly community (home)-based care. A patient with CCD presents to the health care system with unique needs, disabilities, or functional limitations. The literature on how to best support self-management efforts in those with CCD is lacking. With this paper, the authors present the case of an individual with diabetes and end-stage renal disease who is having difficulty with self-management. The case is discussed in terms of intervention effectiveness in the areas of prevention, addiction, and self-management of single diseases. Implications for research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical performance examinations (CPX) with standardized patients (SPs) have become a preferred method to assess communication skills in US medical schools. Little is known about how trainees' backgrounds impact CPX performance.Objective: The objective of this paper is to examine the impact of student ethnicity, primary childhood language, and experience of diversity on the communication scores of a high-stakes CPX using SPs.Design: This research was designed as an observational study.Participants: The participants of this study were third-year medical students at one US medical school.Measurements and Main Results: The measurements used in this study were CPX scores from mandatory exam, student demographics and experience with diversity measured by self-report on a survey, and Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) and United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores. A total of 135 students participated. Asian and black students scored lower than white students on the communication portion of the CPX by approximately half a standard deviation (Asian, 67.4%; black, 64.4%; white, 69.4%, p < .05). There were no differences by ethnicity on history/physical exam scores. Multivariate analysis controlling for MCAT verbal scores reduced ethnic differences in communication scores (Asian-white mean differences = 1.95, p = 0.02), but Asian-white differences were eliminated only after sequential models included primary childhood language (difference = 0.57, p = 0.6).Conclusions: Even after controlling for English language knowledge as measured in MCAT verbal scores, speaking a primary childhood language other than English is associated with lower CPX communication scores for Asian students. While poorer communication skills cannot be ruled out, SP exams may contain measurement bias associated with differences in childhood language or culture. Caution is indicated when interpreting CPX communication scores among diverse examinees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the explosion of online communication in the community, its use between patients and their health care providers remains low. However, rapidly growing patient and provider interest in using online communication has motivated organizations to consider options for deploying these new tools in clinical practice. In this paper, we describe the barriers and challenges health care providers and their organizations must address in developing and deploying these new tools. We formulate lessons from early experiences with e-mail and web-based communication in clinical settings. Finally, we provide a roadmap for developing and deploying these new tools in clinical practice. Health care providers and their organizations will need to consider issues related to technology, data management, operations, communication management, and financial support in order to successfully deploy online services and communication for patients in clinical settings. J GEN INTERN MED 2004;19:978 – 983. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medication safety in patients with polypharmacy at transitions of care is a focus of the current Third WHO Global Patient Safety Challenge. Medication review and communication between health care professionals are key targets to reduce medication-related harm. Objective: To study whether a hospital discharge intervention combining medication review with enhanced information transfer between hospital and primary care physicians can delay hospital readmission and impact health care utilization or other health-related outcomes of older inpatients with polypharmacy. Design: Cluster-randomized controlled trial in 21 Swiss hospitals between January 2019 and September 2020, with 6 months follow-up. Participants: Sixty-eight senior physicians and their blinded junior physicians included 609 patients ≥ 60 years taking ≥ 5 drugs. Interventions: Participating hospitals were randomized to either integrate a checklist-guided medication review and communication stimulus into their discharge processes, or follow usual discharge routines. Main Measures: Primary outcome was time-to-first-readmission to any hospital within 6 months, analyzed using a shared frailty model. Secondary outcomes covered readmission rates, emergency department visits, other medical consultations, mortality, drug numbers, proportions of patients with potentially inappropriate medication, and the patients' quality of life. Key Results: At admission, 609 patients (mean age 77.5 (SD 8.6) years, 49.4% female) took a mean of 9.6 (4.2) drugs per patient. Time-to-first-readmission did not differ significantly between study arms (adjusted hazard ratio 1.14 (intervention vs. control arm), 95% CI [0.75–1.71], p = 0.54), nor did the 30-day hospital readmission rates (6.7% [3.3–10.1%] vs. 7.0% [3.6–10.3%]). Overall, there were no clinically relevant differences between study arms at 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge. Conclusions: The combination of a structured medication review with enhanced information transfer neither delayed hospital readmission nor improved other health-related outcomes of older inpatients with polypharmacy. Our results may help researchers in balancing practicality versus stringency of similar hospital discharge interventions. Study Registration: ISRCTN18427377, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN18427377 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pharmacists frequently serve as the last interaction between a healthcare professional and patient and pharmacists are legally required to counsel patients on new prescriptions. This raises important issues on the protection of conscience, pharmacist corresponding responsibility, and educational needs for the dispensing of lethal medications. Pharmacists are completing residencies and obtaining credentials in specialty areas involving patients who may pursue medical AID.[4], [5] They are well-positioned to assist in many clinical tasks outlined in this paper. [Extracted from the article]

Background: While guidelines recommend against routine screening for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers in older adults (65+ years) with <10-year life expectancy, many of these patients continue to be screened. How clinicians consider screening cessation across multiple cancer screening types is unknown. Objective: To compare and contrast clinicians' perspectives on discontinuing breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer screenings in older adults. Design: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews. Participants: Primary care clinicians in Maryland (N=30) Approach: We conducted semi-structured interviews with individual clinicians. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using standard techniques of qualitative content analysis to identify major themes. Key Results: Participants were mostly physicians (24/30) and women (16/30). Four major themes highlighted differences in decision-making across cancer screenings: (1) Clinicians reported more often screening beyond guideline-recommended ages for breast and prostate cancers than colorectal cancer; (2) clinicians had different priorities when considering the benefits/harms of each screening; for example, some prioritized continuing colorectal cancer screening due to the test's high efficacy while others prioritized stopping colorectal cancer screening due to high procedural risk; some prioritized continuing prostate cancer screening due to poor outcomes from advanced prostate cancer while others prioritized stopping prostate cancer screening due to high false positive test rates and harms from downstream tests; (3) clinicians discussed harms of prostate and colorectal cancer screening more readily than for breast cancer screening; (4) clinicians perceived more involvement with gastroenterologists in colonoscopy decisions and less involvement from specialists for prostate and breast cancer screening. Conclusions: Our results highlight the need for more explicit guidance on how to weigh competing considerations in cancer screening (such as test accuracy versus ease of cancer treatment after detection). Recognizing the complexity of the benefit/harms analysis as clinicians consider multiple cancer screenings, future decision support tools, and clinician education materials can specifically address the competing considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prognostic information is key to shared decision-making, particularly in life-limiting illness like advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). Objective: To understand the prognostic information preferences expressed by older patients with CKD. Design and Participants: Qualitative study of 28 consecutively enrolled patients over 65 years of age with non-dialysis dependent CKD stages 3b-5, receiving care in a multi-disciplinary CKD clinic. Approach: Semi-structured telephone or in-person interviews to explore patients' preference for and perceived value of individualized prognostic information. Interviews were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Key Results: We completed interviews with 28 patients (77.7 ± SD 6.8 years, 69% men). Patients varied in their preference for prognostic information and more were interested in their risk of progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) than in life expectancy. Many conflated ESKD risk with risk of death, perceiving a binary choice between dialysis and quick decline and death. Patients expressed that prognostic information would allow them to plan, take care of important business, and think about their treatment options. Patients were accepting of prognostic uncertainty and imagined leveraging it to nurture hope or motivate them to better manage risk factors. They endorsed the desire to receive prognosis of life expectancy even though it may be hard to accept or difficult to talk about but worried it could create helplessness for other patients in their situation. Conclusion: Most, but not all, patients were interested in prognostic information and could see its value in motivating behavior change and allowing planning. Some patients expressed concern that information on life expectancy might cause depression and hopelessness. Therefore, prognostic information is most appropriate as part of a clinical conversation that fosters shared decision-making and helps patients consider treatment risks, benefits, and burdens in context of their lives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the impending surge in the number of older adults, primary care clinicians will increasingly need to manage the care of vulnerable elders. Caring for vulnerable elders is complex because of their wide range of health goals and the interdependence of medical care and community supports needed to achieve those goals. In this article, we identify ways a primary care practice can reorganize to improve the care of vulnerable elders. We begin by identifying important outcomes for vulnerable elders and three key processes of care (communication, developing a personal care plan for each patient, and care coordination) needed to achieve these outcomes. We then describe two delivery models of primary care for vulnerable elders--co-management, and augmented primary care. Finally, we discuss how the physical plant, people, workflow management, and community linkages in a primary care practice can be restructured to better serve these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Results of 2 trials of postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) challenged established practice patterns; 1 was not associated with changes in HT use, whereas the other was associated with substantial decline. Differential coverage by lay newspapers may have contributed to the differential impact.Objective: To examine newspaper coverage of HT before and after the publication of the Heart and Estrogen Replacement Study (HERS) in August 1998, and the main findings of the estrogen plus progestin therapy arm of the Women's Health Initiative (EPT-WHI) in July 2002.Design: Longitudinal review of newspaper articles, 1998 to 2003 (n=663).Setting: Twenty local and 6 regional/national newspapers.Measurements: Number and content of articles about HT.Results: The average number of articles about HT published during the month of the publication of the EPT-WHI was at least 8-fold greater than the number of articles published on the topic during any prior period. While the majority of articles in all periods presented information about the potential benefits of HT, information about harms became more common than information about benefits during the 2 months before the publication of the EPT-WHI, when the trial participants were notified of the early termination of the study. The presentation of specific health harms was more common after the publication of the EPT-WHI than after the publication of HERS. Few articles in any period used visual aids.Conclusions: The publication of the EPT-WHI was associated with a change in both the volume and content of newspaper coverage about HT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Brief, stand-up meetings known as huddles may improve clinical care, but knowledge about huddle implementation and effectiveness at the frontlines is fragmented and setting specific. This work provides a comprehensive overview of huddles used in diverse health care settings, examines the empirical support for huddle effectiveness, and identifies knowledge gaps and opportunities for future research. Methods: A scoping review was completed by searching the databases PubMed, EBSCOhost, ProQuest, and OvidSP for studies published in English from inception to May 31, 2019. Eligible studies described huddles that (1) took place in a clinical or medical setting providing health care patient services, (2) included frontline staff members, (3) were used to improve care quality, and (4) were studied empirically. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts; seven reviewers independently abstracted data from full texts. Results: Of 2,185 identified studies, 158 met inclusion criteria. The majority (67.7%) of studies described huddles used to improve team communication, collaboration, and/or coordination. Huddles positively impacted team process outcomes in 67.7% of studies, including improvements in efficiency, process-based functioning, and communication across clinical roles (64.4%); situational awareness and staff perceptions of safety and safety climate (44.6%); and staff satisfaction and engagement (29.7%). Almost half of studies (44.3%) reported huddles positively impacting clinical care outcomes such as patients receiving timely and/or evidence-based assessments and care (31.4%); decreased medical errors and adverse drug events (24.3%); and decreased rates of other negative outcomes (20.0%). Discussion: Huddles involving frontline staff are an increasingly prevalent practice across diverse health care settings. Huddles are generally interdisciplinary and aimed at improving team communication, collaboration, and/or coordination. Data from the scoping review point to the effectiveness of huddles at improving work and team process outcomes and indicate the positive impact of huddles can extend beyond processes to include improvements in clinical outcomes. Study Registration: This scoping review was registered with the Open Science Framework on 18 January 2019 (https://osf.io/bdj2x/). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthcare organizations are moving their primary care teams out of private offices into shared workspaces for many reasons, including teamwork improvement and cost reduction. Objective: Identify the specific aspects of layout and design that enable two fundamental processes of high-functioning teams: communication and situation awareness. Design: This was a multi-method study employing qualitative interviews, floor plan analysis, observations, behavior mapping, and surveys. Participants: Two primary care clinics in a large, integrated healthcare system in the upper Midwest, with Clinic S in a suburban location and Clinic A in a rural setting. In the two clinics, a total of 36 staff members were interviewed, 57 (66% response rate) staff members were surveyed, and 2013 individual-points were recorded during 63 behavior mapping observations. Main Measures: Communication encounters, team members' perception of the environment and teamwork, visibility, distance, functional pathways, and self-reported mode and frequency of staff communication. Key Results: Observations, interviews, and surveys identified environmental factors that predict staff awareness and communication patterns. Visibility impacts situation awareness. Frequency of face-to-face communication increases with visibility and proximity between workstations (e.g., Clinic A nurses' intra-role communication without workstation proximity vs inter-role communication with workstation proximity: 22.6% [11.4, 33.9] vs 77.4% [66.1, 88.6], p = 0.001) and with staff members' functional paths. Visual exposure to patients predicts staff's concerns about their communication (Clinic S: 2.29 ± 0.81 vs Clinic A: 3.20 ± 0.84, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Design and layout of team spaces have important influences on the way that team members work together. The organizational goals of the healthcare system, particularly which staff members need to work together most frequently, should drive the specific design solution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ineffective transitions of care continue to be a source of risk for patients. Although there has been widespread implementation of electronic medical record (EMR) systems, little is currently known about hospitalists' and primary care providers' (PCPs) direct communication preferences at discharge using messaging capabilities in a shared EMR system.Objective: We examined how hospitalists and PCPs with a shared EMR prefer to directly communicate at the time of hospital discharge by identifying preferred modes, information prioritization, challenges, facilitators, and proposed solutions.Design: A sequential, explanatory mixed methods study with surveys and semi-structured interviews.Participants: Thirty-eight academic hospitalists and 63 PCPs working in outpatient clinics in a single safety net hospital system with a shared EMR.Main Approach: Descriptive statistics were used to analyze survey responses. Interviews were analyzed using immersion/crystallization and a mixture of inductive and deductive thematic analysis.Key Results: PCPs preferred direct communication at discharge through a message within the EMR while hospitalists preferred a message within the EMR and email. Qualitative results identified key themes related to patient care and direct communication: value of direct communication, safety, social determinants of health, and clinical judgment. Both groups prioritized direct communication for high-risk medications, pending and follow-up studies, and high-risk patients that hospitalists were concerned about. Overall, both hospitalists and PCPs reported that ensuring patient safety, flagging patients with social challenges, and expressing concerns about patients based on clinical judgment were key communication priorities.Conclusions: Hospitalists and primary care providers report considerable overlap in preferences for direct communication at the time of hospital discharge through a shared EMR. Specifically, both groups reported similar concerns regarding patient safety and continuity during transitions. Direct messaging within the EMR could enable "closed loop" communication that helps ensure safe transitions of care for high-risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical video telehealth (CVT) offers the opportunity to improve access to healthcare providers in medically underserved areas. However, because CVT encounters are mediated through technology, they may result in unintended consequences related to the patient-provider interaction.Methods: Twenty-seven patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus enrolled in Veteran Affairs Health Care and at least one previous telehealth visit experience were interviewed regarding their perspectives on facilitators and barriers to communication with their provider during their CVT visit. The semi-structured telephone interviews were approximately 30 min and were audio-recorded and transcribed. We conducted a thematic content analysis of the interview transcripts. Codes from the transcripts were grouped into thematic categories using the constant comparison method and each theme is represented with illustrative quotes.Results: We identified several themes related to patients' perspectives on CVT. In general, patients expressed satisfaction with CVT visits including better access to appointments, shorter travel time, and less time in the waiting room. Yet, patients also identified several challenges and concerns about CVT visits compared with in-person visits, including concerns about errors in their care because of perceived difficulty completing the physical exam, perceptions that providers paid less attention to them, barriers to speaking up and asking questions, and difficulty establishing a provider-patient relationship. Patients reported feeling less involved during the visit, difficulty finding opportunities to speak, and feeling rushed by the provider.Conclusions: Patients believed that CVT can improve their access to care, but could hinder communication with their provider, and some were concerned about the completeness and accuracy of the physical exam. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies suggest that black patients have better interactions, on average, with physicians of their own race. Whether this reflects greater "cultural competence" in race-concordant relationships, or other effects of race unrelated to physician behavior, is unclear. It is also unclear if physician race influences patient decision-making.Objective: To determine whether physician race affects patients' ratings of physicians and decision-making, independent of physician behavior.Design: Randomized study using standardized video vignettes.Participants: Primary care patients with coronary risk factors or disease.Interventions: Each participant viewed one of 16 vignettes depicting a physician reviewing cardiac catheterization results and recommending coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Vignettes varied only in terms of physicians' race, gender, age, and communication style (high vs. low patient-centeredness).Main Measures: Participants rated the video physician's communication, interpersonal style, competence, trustworthiness, likability, and overall performance (0-4 Likert scales). They also rated the necessity of CABG (0-5 scale) and whether they would undergo CABG or obtain a second opinion if they were the video patient (0-3 scales).Key Results: Participants included 107 black and 131 white patients (72% participation rate). Black participants viewing a black (vs. white) video physician gave higher ratings on all physician attributes (e.g., overall rating 3.22 vs. 2.34, p < 0.001) and were more likely to perceive CABG as necessary (4.05 vs. 3.72, p = 0.03) and say they would undergo CABG if they were the video patient (2.43 vs. 2.09, p = 0.004). Patient-centered communication style reduced, but did not eliminate, the impact of race concordance. Physician race was not associated with any outcomes among white patients.Conclusions: Black patients viewed the doctor in a scripted vignette more positively, and were more receptive to the same recommendation, communicated in the same way, with a black vs. white physician. Patient-centered communication reduced but did not eliminate the effect of physician race. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Half of women undergoing mammography have dense breasts. Mandatory dense breast notification and educational materials have been shown to confuse women, rather than empower them.Objective: This study used a mixed method, multi-stakeholder approach to assess acceptability of an interactive, computer-animated agent that provided breast density information to women and changes in knowledge, satisfaction, and informational needs.Design: A pre-post survey and qualitative focus groups assessed the acceptability of the computer-animated agent among women. An anonymous, online survey measuring acceptability was delivered to a multi-stakeholder group.Participants: English-speaking, mammography-eligible women ages 40-74 were invited and 44 women participated in one of nine focus groups. In addition, 14 stakeholders representing primary care, radiology, patient advocates, public health practitioners, and researchers completed the online survey.Interventions: A prototype of a computer-animated agent was delivered to women in a group setting; stakeholders viewed the prototype independently.Main Measures: Data collected included open-ended qualitative questions that guided discussion about the content and form of the computer-animated agent. Structured surveys included domains related to knowledge, acceptability, and satisfaction. Stakeholder acceptability was measured with a series of statements about aspects of the intervention and delivery approach and are reported as the proportion of respondents who endorsed each statement.Key Results: Six of 12 knowledge items demonstrated improvement post-intervention, satisfaction with the agent was high (81%), but the number of unanswered questions did not improve (67% vs. 54%, p = 0.37). Understanding of the distinction between connective and fatty tissue in the breast did not increase (30% vs. 26%, p = 0.48). Results of the multi-stakeholder survey suggest broad acceptability of the approach and agent.Conclusions: Findings highlight the benefits of a brief interactive educational exposure as well as misperceptions that persisted. Results demonstrate the need for an evidence-based, accessible intervention that is easy to understand for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Risk communication is a core aspect of a physician's work and a fundamental prerequisite for successful shared decision-making. However, many physicians are not able to adequately communicate risks to patients due to a lack of understanding of statistics as well as inadequate management of conflicts of interest (COI).Objective: To evaluate the effects of an integrated curriculum encompassing COI and shared decision-making on the participants' risk communication competence, that is, their competence to advise patients on the benefits and harms of diagnostic or therapeutic interventions.Design: A rater-blind randomized controlled trial with a 30 (± 1)-week follow-up conducted from October 2016 to June 2017 at two German academic medical centers.Participants: Sixty-three medical students in their fourth or fifth year.Interventions: Participants received either a newly developed 15-h curriculum or a course manual adapted from teaching as usual.Main Measures: Primary outcome: change in risk communication performance in a video-observed structured clinical examination (VOSCE).Key Results: Participants were 25.7 years old on average (SD 3.6); 73% (46/63) were female. Increase in risk communication performance was significantly higher in the intervention group with post-intervention Cohen's d of 2.35 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.62 to 3.01, p < 0.01) and of 1.83 (CI 1.13 to 2.47, p < 0.01) 30 (± 1) weeks later. Secondary outcomes with the exception of frequency of interactions with the pharmaceutical industry also showed relevant improvements in the intervention as compared with the control group (d between 0.91 and 2.04 (p < 0.001)).Conclusions: Our results show that an integrated curriculum encompassing COI and risk communication leads to a large and sustainable increase in risk communication performance. We interpret the large effect sizes to be a result of the integration of topics that are usually taught separately, leading to a more effective organization of knowledge.Trial Registration: The trial is registered in the International Clinical Trials Registry with the trial number DRKS00010890. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is widely recommended and required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS).Objective: We examined clinicians' communication practices and perceived barriers of SDM for LCS at three medical centers with established screening programs.Design: Multicenter qualitative study of clinicians participating in LCS.Approach: We performed semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and analyzed using directed content analysis, guided by a theoretical model of patient-clinician communication.Participants: We interviewed 24 clinicians including LCS coordinators (2), pulmonologists (3), and primary care providers (17), 4 of whom worked for the LCS program, a thoracic surgeon, and a radiologist.Results: All clinicians agreed with the goal of SDM, to ensure the screening decision was congruent with the patient's values. The depth and type of information presented by each clinician role varied considerably. LCS coordinators presented detailed information including numeric estimates of benefit and harm. Most PCPs explained the process more generally, focusing on logistics and the high rate of nodule detection. No clinician explicitly elicited values or communication preferences. Many PCPs tailored the conversation based on their implicit understanding of patients' values and preferences, gained from past experiences. PCPs reported that time, lack of detailed personal knowledge of LCS, and patient preferences were barriers to SDM. Many clinicians perceived that a significant proportion of patients were not interested in specific percentages and preferred to receive a clinician recommendation.Conclusions: Our results suggest that clinicians support the goal of SDM for LCS decisions but PCPs may not perform some of its elements. The lack of completion of some elements, such as PCPs' lack of in-depth information exchange, may reflect perceived patient preferences for communication. As LCS is implemented, further research is needed to support a personalized, patient-centered approach to produce better outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Marijuana is currently legal for recreational use in 10 states and Washington DC while a total of 34 states have implemented varying degrees of medical marijuana. The commercialization of marijuana has been accompanied by a proliferation of false claims regarding the therapeutic potential of marijuana, which are popularized by several different information sources. To date, no study has examined where US adults get their information regarding marijuana.Objective: To determine the sources of information associated with believing unsupported claims about marijuana.Design: Probability-based online survey PARTICIPANTS: 16,820 adults, with a response rate of about 55% (N = 9003) MAIN MEASURES: Most influential sources of information about marijuana and belief of statements consistent with misinformation, for example, smoking marijuana has preventative health benefits, secondhand marijuana smoke or use during pregnancy is completely or somewhat safe, and marijuana is not at all addictive.Key Results: There were 9003 respondents (response rate 55%). Forty-three percent believed unsupported claims about marijuana. The most influential sources of information were health professionals, traditional media, friends/relatives, and social media/internet. Individuals reporting social media or the Internet (1.46 CI [1.30, 1.64]), the marijuana industry (e.g., advertisements, dispensaries) (2.88 CI [2.15, 3.88]), and friends or relatives (1.41 CI[1.26, 1.58]) as the most influential source of information about marijuana were more likely to believe any statement consistent with misinformation about marijuana in comparison with those who reported other sources as most influential.Conclusions: Individuals reporting the most significant source of information regarding marijuana was from social media or the Internet, the marijuana industry, or friends or relatives were more likely to believe unsupported claims about marijuana. Public health campaigns to counter the misinformation about marijuana to the public are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/objectives: Many older adults receive unnecessary screening colonoscopies. We previously conducted a survey using a national online panel to assess older adults' preferences for how clinicians can discuss stopping screening colonoscopies. We sought to assess the generalizability of those results by comparing them to a sample of older adults with low health literacy.Design: Cross-sectional survey.Setting: Baltimore metropolitan area (low health literacy sample) and a national, probability-based online panel-KnowledgePanel (national sample).Participants: Adults 65+ with low health literacy measured using a single-question screen (low health literacy sample, n = 113) and KnowledgePanel members 65+ who completed survey about colorectal cancer screening (national sample, n = 441).Measurements: The same survey was administered to both groups. Using the best-worst scaling method, we assessed relative preferences for 13 different ways to explain stopping screening colonoscopies. We used conditional logistic regression to quantify the relative preference for each explanation, where a higher preference weight indicates stronger preference. We analyzed each sample separately, then compared the two samples using Spearman's correlation coefficient, the likelihood ratio test to assess for overall differences between the two sets of preference weights, and the Wald test to assess differences in preference weights for each individual phrases.Results: The responses from the two samples were highly correlated (Spearman's coefficient 0.92, p < 0.0001). The most preferred phrase to explain stopping screening colonoscopy was "Your other health issues should take priority" in both groups. The three least preferred options were also the same for both groups, with the least preferred being "The doctor does not give an explanation." The explanation that referred to "quality of life" was more preferred by the low health literacy group whereas explanations that mentioned "unlikely to benefit" and "high risk for harms" were more preferred by the national survey group (all p < 0.001).Conclusion: Among two different populations of older adults with different health literacy levels, the preferred strategies for clinicians to discuss stopping screening colonoscopies were highly correlated. Our results can inform effective communication about stopping screening colonoscopies in older adults across different health literacy levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pain management racial disparities exist, yet it is unclear whether disparities exist in pain management in advanced cancer.Objective: To examine the effect of race on physicians' pain assessment and treatment in advanced lung cancer and the moderating effect of patient activation.Design: Randomized field experiment. Physicians consented to see two unannounced standardized patients (SPs) over 18 months. SPs portrayed 4 identical roles-a 62-year-old man with advanced lung cancer and uncontrolled pain-differing by race (black or white) and role (activated or typical). Activated SPs asked questions, interrupted when necessary, made requests, and expressed opinions.Participants: Ninety-six primary care physicians (PCPs) and oncologists from small cities, and suburban and rural areas of New York, Indiana, and Michigan. Physicians' mean age was 52 years (SD = 27.17), 59% male, and 64% white.Main Measures: Opioids prescribed (or not), total daily opioid doses (in oral morphine equivalents), guideline-concordant pain management, and pain assessment.Key Results: SPs completed 181 covertly audio-recorded visits that had complete data for the model covariates. Physicians detected SPs in 15% of visits. Physicians prescribed opioids in 71% of visits; 38% received guideline-concordant doses. Neither race nor activation was associated with total opioid dose or guideline-concordant pain management, and there were no interaction effects (p > 0.05). Activation, but not race, was associated with improved pain assessment (ẞ, 0.46, 95% CI 0.18, 0.74). In post hoc analyses, oncologists (but not PCPs) were less likely to prescribe opioids to black SPs (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07, 0.81).Conclusions: Neither race nor activation was associated with opioid prescribing; activation was associated with better pain assessment. In post hoc analyses, oncologists were less likely to prescribe opioids to black male SPs than white male SPs; PCPs had no racial disparities. In general, physicians may be under-prescribing opioids for cancer pain.Trial Registration: NCT01501006. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This research aimed to understand the experiences of patients transitioning from hospitals to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) by eliciting views from patients and hospital and skilled nursing facility staff.Design: We conducted semi-structured interviews with hospital and skilled nursing facility staff and skilled nursing facility patients and their family members in an attempt to understand transitions between hospital and SNF. These interviews focused on all aspects of the discharge planning and nursing facility placement processes including who is involved, how decisions are made, patients' experiences, hospital-SNF communication, and the presence of programs to improve the transition process.Participants: Participants were 138 staff in 16 hospitals and 25 SNFs in 8 markets across the country, and 98 newly admitted, previously community-dwelling SNF patients and/or their family members in five of those markets.Approach: Interviews were qualitatively analyzed to identify overarching themes.Key Results: Patients reported they felt rushed in making their SNF decisions, did not feel they were appropriately prepared for the hospital-SNF transition or educated about their post-acute needs, and experienced transitions that felt chaotic, with complications they associated with timing and medications. Hospital and SNF staff expressed similar opinions, stating that transitions were rushed, there were problems with the timing of the discharge, with information transfer and medication reconciliation, and that patients were not appropriately prepared for the transition. Staff at some facilities reported programs designed to address these problems, but the efficacy of these programs is unknown.Conclusions: Results indicate problematic transitions stemming from insufficient care coordination and failure to appropriately prepare patients and their family members. Previous research suggests that problematic or hurried transitions from hospital to SNF are associated with medication errors and unnecessary rehospitalizations. Interventions to improve transitions from hospital to SNF that include a focus on patients and families are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While the need to address language barriers to provide quality care for all is generally accepted, little is known about the complexities of decision-making around patients' limited language proficiency in everyday clinical encounters.Objective: To understand how linguistic complexities shape cross-cultural encounters by incorporating the perspective of both, patients and physicians.Design: A qualitative hospital study with semi-structured interviews and participant-observation in a Swiss University Hospital. Thirty-two encounters were observed and 94 interviews conducted.Participants: Sixteen patients of Turkish and 16 of Albanian origin and all actors (administration, nurses, physicians, if required, interpreters) involved in the patients' entire process.Main Approach: Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic content analysis was conducted using MAXQDA. For reporting, the COREQ guidelines were used.Key Results: Three themes were relevant to patients and physicians alike: Assessment of the language situation, the use of interpreters, and dealing with conversational limits. Physicians tend to assess patients' language proficiency by their body language, individual demeanor, or adequacy of responses to questions. Physicians use professional interpreters for "high-stakes" conversations, and "get by" through "low-stakes" topics by resorting to bilingual family members, for example. Patients are driven by factors like fearing costs or the wish to manage on their own. High acceptance of conversational limits by patients and physicians alike stands in stark contrast to the availability of interpreters.Conclusions: The decision for or against interpreter use in the "real world" of clinical care is complex and shaped by small, frequently inconspicuous decisions with potential for suboptimal health care. Physicians occupy a key position in the decision-making to initiate the process of medical interpreting. The development and testing of a conceptual framework close to practice is crucial for guiding physicians' assessment of patients' language proficiency and their decision-making on the use of interpreting services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients are frequently discharged from the hospital before all test results have been finalized. Thirty to 40% of tests pending at discharge (TPADs) return potentially actionable results that could necessitate change in the patients' management, often unbeknownst to their physicians. Delayed follow-up of TPADs can lead to patient harm. We sought to synthesize the existing literature on interventions intended to improve the management of TPADs, including interventions designed to enhance documentation of TPADs, increase physician awareness when TPAD results finalize post-discharge, decrease adverse events related to missed TPADs, and increase physician satisfaction with TPAD management.Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Database of Controlled Clinical Trials and Medline (January 1, 2000-November 10, 2016) for randomized controlled trials and prospective, controlled observational studies that evaluated interventions to improve follow-up of TPADs for adult patients discharged from acute care hospitals or emergency department settings. From each study we extracted characteristics of the intervention being evaluated and its impact on TPAD management.Results: Nine studies met the criteria for inclusion. Six studies evaluated electronic discharge summary templates with a designated field for documenting TPADs, and three of six of these studies reported a significant improvement in documentation of TPADs in discharge summaries in pre- and post-intervention analysis. One study reported that auditing discharge summaries and providing feedback to physicians were associated with improved TPAD documentation in discharge summaries. Two studies found that email alerts when TPADs were finalized improved physicians' awareness of the results and documentation of their follow-up actions. Of the four studies that assessed patient morbidity, two showed a positive effect; however, none specifically measured the impact of their interventions on downstream patient harm due to delayed follow-up of TPADs. Three studies surveyed physicians' attitudes towards the interventions, of which two studies reported improved physician satisfaction with TPAD management with the implementation of an enhanced discharge template and a notification system when TPADs finalize.Discussion: Discharge summary templates, educational interventions for discharging physicians, and email alerts when TPAD results are finalized show promise in improving management of TPADs. Given the complexity of the processes necessary to ensure follow-up of TPADs, rigorous evaluations of multifaceted interventions (e.g., improved discharge documentation of TPADs combined with email alerts when results become available) is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary care providers (PCPs) can play a critical role in helping patients receive the preventive health benefits of cancer genetic risk information. Thus, the objective of this systematic review was to identify studies of US PCPs' knowledge, attitudes, and communication-related behaviors regarding genetic tests that could inform risk-stratification approaches for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening in order to describe current findings and research gaps.Methods: We conducted a systematic search of six electronic databases to identify peer-reviewed empirical articles relating to US PCPs and genetic testing for breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer published in English from 2008 to 2016. We reviewed these data and used narrative synthesis methods to integrate findings into a descriptive summary and identify research needs.Results: We identified 27 relevant articles. Most focused on genetic testing for breast cancer (23/27) and colorectal cancer risk (12/27); only one study examined testing for prostate cancer risk. Most articles addressed descriptive research questions (24/27). Many studies (24/27) documented PCPs' knowledge, often concluding that providers' knowledge was incomplete. Studies commonly (11/27) examined PCPs' attitudes. Across studies, PCPs expressed some concerns about ethical, legal, and social implications of testing. Attitudes about the utility of clinical genetic testing, including for targeted cancer screening, were generally favorable; PCPs were more skeptical of direct-to-consumer testing. Relatively fewer studies (9/27) examined PCPs' communication practices regarding cancer genetic testing.Discussion: This review indicates a need for investigators to move beyond descriptive research questions related to PCPs' knowledge and attitudes about cancer genetic testing. Research is needed to address important gaps regarding the development, testing, and implementation of innovative interventions and educational programs that can improve PCPs' genetic testing knowledge, assuage concerns about the appropriateness of cancer genetic testing, and promote open and effective patient-provider communication about genetic risk and genetic testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The healthcare system is ill-equipped to meet the needs of adults on the autism spectrum.Objective: Our goal was to use a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to develop and evaluate tools to facilitate the primary healthcare of autistic adults.Design: Toolkit development included cognitive interviewing and test-retest reliability studies. Evaluation consisted of a mixed-methods, single-arm pre/post-intervention comparison.Participants: A total of 259 autistic adults and 51 primary care providers (PCPs) residing in the United States.Interventions: The AASPIRE Healthcare toolkit includes the Autism Healthcare Accommodations Tool (AHAT)-a tool that allows patients to create a personalized accommodations report for their PCP-and general healthcare- and autism-related information, worksheets, checklists, and resources for patients and healthcare providers.Main Measures: Satisfaction with patient-provider communication, healthcare self-efficacy, barriers to healthcare, and satisfaction with the toolkit's usability and utility; responses to open-ended questions.Key Results: Preliminary testing of the AHAT demonstrated strong content validity and adequate test-retest stability. Almost all patient participants (>94 %) felt that the AHAT and the toolkit were easy to use, important, and useful. In pre/post-intervention comparisons, the mean number of barriers decreased (from 4.07 to 2.82, p < 0.0001), healthcare self-efficacy increased (from 37.9 to 39.4, p = 0.02), and satisfaction with PCP communication improved (from 30.9 to 32.6, p = 0.03). Patients stated that the toolkit helped clarify their needs, enabled them to self-advocate and prepare for visits more effectively, and positively influenced provider behavior. Most of the PCPs surveyed read the AHAT (97 %), rated it as moderately or very useful (82 %), and would recommend it to other patients (87 %).Conclusions: The CBPR process resulted in a reliable healthcare accommodation tool and a highly accessible healthcare toolkit. Patients and providers indicated that the tools positively impacted healthcare interactions. The toolkit has the potential to reduce barriers to healthcare and improve healthcare self-efficacy and patient-provider communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on a study which aims to promote conversations between clinicians and patients that will help patients to choose care that is supported by evidence, not duplicative of other tests or procedures already received. It mentions that the study aims at improving how patients and doctors communicate on these topics, we sought to understand what words resonate most with the public to describe use of services where the likelihood of harm exceeds the likelihood of benefit.

Background: Brief interventions for unhealthy drinking in primary care settings are efficacious, but underutilized. Efforts to improve rates of brief intervention though provider education and office systems redesign have had limited impact. Our novel brief intervention uses interactive voice response (IVR) to provide information and advice directly to unhealthy drinkers before a physician office visit, with the goals of stimulating in-office dialogue about drinking and decreasing unhealthy drinking. This automated approach is potentially scalable for wide application.Objective: We aimed to examine the effect of a pre-visit IVR-delivered brief alcohol intervention (IVR-BI) on patient-provider discussions of alcohol during the visit.Design: This was a parallel group randomized controlled trial with two treatment arms: 1) IVR-BI or 2) usual care (no IVR-BI).Participants: In all, 1,567 patients were recruited from eight university medical center-affiliated internal medicine and family medicine clinics.Interventions: IVR-BI is a brief alcohol intervention delivered by automated telephone. It has four components, based on the intervention steps outlined in the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism guidelines for clinicians: 1) ask about alcohol use, 2) assess for alcohol use disorders, 3) advise patient to cut down or quit drinking, and 4) follow up at subsequent visits.Main Measures: Outcomes were patient reported: patient-provider discussion of alcohol during the visit; patient initiation of the discussion; and provider's recommendation about the patient's alcohol use.Key Results: Patients randomized to IVR-BI were more likely to have reported discussing alcohol with their provider (52 % vs. 44 %, p = 0.003), bringing up the topic themselves (20 % vs. 12 %, p < 0.001), and receiving a recommendation (20 % vs. 14 %, p < 0.001). Other predictors of outcome included baseline consumption, education, age, and alcohol use disorder diagnosis.Conclusions: Providing automated brief interventions to patients prior to a primary care visit promotes discussion about unhealthy drinking and increases specific professional advice regarding changing drinking behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: One potential approach to reducing health disparities among minorities is through the promotion of shared decision making (SDM). The most commonly studied SDM intervention is the decision aid (DA). While DAs have been extensively studied, we know relatively little about their use in minority populations. We conducted a systematic review to characterize the application and effectiveness of DAs in racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender minorities.Methods: We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating DAs between 2004 and 2013. We included trials that enrolled adults (> 18 years of age) with > 50 % representation by minority patients. Four reviewers independently assessed 597 initially identified articles, and those with inconclusive results were discussed to consensus. We abstracted decision quality, patient-doctor communication, and clinical treatment decision outcomes. Results were considered significantly modified by the DA if the study reported p < 0.05.Results: We reviewed 18 RCTs of DA interventions in minority populations. The majority of interventions (78 %) addressed cancer screening. The most common mode of delivery for the DAs was personal counseling (46 %), followed by multi-media (29 %), and print materials (25 %). Most of the trials studied racial (78 %) or ethnic (17 %) minorities with only one trial focused on sexual minorities and none on gender minorities. Ten studies tailored their interventions for their minority populations. Comparing intervention vs. control, decision quality outcomes improved in six out of eight studies and patient-doctor communication improved in six out of seven studies. Of the 15 studies that reported on clinical decisions, eight demonstrated significant changes in decisions with DAs.Discussion: DAs have been effective in improving patient-doctor communication and decision quality outcomes in minority populations and could help address health disparities. However, the existing literature is almost non-existent for sexual and gender minorities and has not included the full breadth of clinical decisions that affect minority populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While Electronic Medical Record (EMR) use has increased dramatically, the EMR's impact on the patient-doctor relationship remains unclear. This systematic literature review sought to understand the impact of EMR use on patient-doctor relationships and communication.Methods: Parallel searches in Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, reference review of prior systematic reviews, meeting abstract reviews, and expert reviews from August 2013 to March 2015 were conducted. Medical Subject Heading terms related to EMR use were combined with keyword terms identifying face-to-face patient-doctor communication. English language observational or interventional studies (1995-2015) were included. Studies examining physician attitudes only were excluded. Structured data extraction compared study population, design, data collection method, and outcomes.Results: Fifty-three of 7445 studies reviewed met inclusion criteria. Included studies used behavioral analysis (28) to objectively measure communication behaviors using video or direct observation and pre-post or cross-sectional surveys to examine patient perceptions (25). Objective studies reported EMR communication behaviors that were both potentially negative (i.e., interrupted speech, low rates of screen sharing) and positive (i.e., facilitating questions). Studies examining overall patient perceptions of satisfaction, communication or the patient-doctor relationship (n = 22) reported no change with EMR use (16); a positive impact (5) or showed mixed results (1). Study quality was not assessable. Small sample sizes limited generalizability. Publication bias may limit findings.Discussion: Despite objective evidence that EMR use may negatively impact patient-doctor communication, studies examining patient perceptions found no change in patient satisfaction or patient-doctor communication. Therefore, our findings should encourage providers to adopt the EMR as a communication tool. Future research is needed to better understand how to enhance patient-doctor- EMR communication. This research should correlate observed physician behavior to patient satisfaction, focus on physician communication skills training, and explore inpatient experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a project undertaken at Brigham and Womens Hospital (BWH) that focused on electronic referral order systems established in the U.S. and internationally with broad uptake by primary care physicians (PCPs) and improved physician satisfaction. It aims to add to the existing literature on eReferral systems by tracking physician satisfaction across an entire health system and using administrative claims to look at the impact of eReferral on total specialist utlization.

Background: Patient-physician communication often occurs outside the clinic setting; many institutions discourage electronic communication outside of established electronic health record systems. Little empirical data are available on patient interest in electronic communication and Web-based health tools that are technically feasible but not widely available.Research Objective: To explore patient behavior and interest in using the Internet to contact physicians.Design: National cross-sectional online survey.Participants: A sample of 4,510 CVS customers with at least one chronic condition in the household was used to target patients with chronic conditions and their caregivers. Subjects were identified from a national panel of over 100,000 retail pharmacy customers. Of those sampled, 2,252 responded (50.0 % response rate).Main Measures: Survey measures included demographic and health information, patient use of email and Facebook to contact physicians, and patient interest in and use of Web-based tools for health.Key Results: A total of 37 % of patients reported contacting their physicians via email within the last six months, and 18 % via Facebook. Older age was negatively associated with contacting physicians using email (OR 0.57 [95 % CI 0.41-0.78]) or Facebook (OR 0.28 [0.17-0.45]). Non-white race (OR 1.61 [1.18-2.18] and OR 1.82 [1.24-2.67]) and caregiver status (OR 1.58 [1.27-1.96] and OR 1.71 [1.31- 2.23]) were positively associated with using email and Facebook, respectively. Patients were interested in using Web-based tools to fill prescriptions, track their own health, and access health information (37-57 %), but few were currently doing so (4-8 %).Conclusions: In this population of retail pharmacy users, there is strong interest among patients in the use of email and Facebook to communicate with their physicians. The findings highlight the gap between patient interest for online communication and what physicians may currently provide. Improving and accelerating the adoption of secure Web messaging systems is a possible solution that addresses both institutional concerns and patient demand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ethical challenges are common in end of life care; the uncertainty of prognosis and the ethically permissible boundaries of treatment create confusion and conflict about the balance between benefits and burdens experienced by patients.Objective: We asked physician trainees in internal medicine how they reacted and responded to ethical challenges arising in the context of perceived futile treatments at the end of life and how these challenges contribute to moral distress.Design: Semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews.Participants: Twenty-two internal medicine residents and fellows across three American academic medical centers.Approach: This study uses systematic qualitative methods of data gathering, analysis and interpretation.Key Results: Physician trainees experienced significant moral distress when they felt obligated to provide treatments at or near the end of life that they believed to be futile. Some trainees developed detached and dehumanizing attitudes towards patients as a coping mechanism, which may contribute to a loss of empathy. Successful coping strategies included formal and informal conversations with colleagues and superiors about the emotional and ethical challenges of providing care at the end of life.Conclusions: Moral distress amongst physician trainees may occur when they feel obligated to provide treatments at the end of life that they believe to be futile or harmful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Physician recommendation of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is a critical facilitator of screening completion. Providing patients a choice of screening options may increase CRC screening completion, particularly among racial and ethnic minorities.Objective: Our purpose was to assess the effectiveness of physician-only and physician-patient interventions on increasing rates of CRC screening discussions as compared to usual care.Design: This study was quasi-experimental. Clinics were allocated to intervention or usual care; patients in intervention clinics were randomized to receipt of patient intervention.Participants: Patients aged 50 to 75 years, due for CRC screening, receiving care at either a federally qualified health care center or an academic health center participated in the study.Intervention: Intervention physicians received continuous quality improvement and communication skills training. Intervention patients watched an educational video immediately before their appointment.Main Measures: Rates of patient-reported 1) CRC screening discussions, and 2) discussions of more than one screening test.Key Results: The physician-patient intervention (n = 167) resulted in higher rates of CRC screening discussions compared to both physician-only intervention (n = 183; 61.1 % vs.50.3 %, p = 0.008) and usual care (n = 153; 61.1 % vs. 34.0 % p = 0.03). More discussions of specific CRC screening tests and discussions of more than one test occurred in the intervention arms than in usual care (44.6 % vs. 22.9 %,p = 0.03) and (5.1 % vs. 2.0 %, p = 0.036), respectively, but discussion of more than one test was uncommon. Across all arms, 143 patients (28.4 %) reported discussion of colonoscopy only; 21 (4.2 %) reported discussion of both colonoscopy and stool tests.Conclusions: Compared to usual care and a physician-only intervention, a physician-patient intervention increased rates of CRC screening discussions, yet discussions overwhelmingly focused solely on colonoscopy. In underserved patient populations where access to colonoscopy may be limited, interventions encouraging discussions of both stool tests and colonoscopy may be needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Patients are increasingly being given access to their test results, but little is known about how preferences vary with the test under consideration or the results of the test (normal or abnormal).Objective: This study was conducted to examine preferences for test result communication.Design, Setting, and Participants: We surveyed adults to explore their preferences for test result notification for three common diagnostic tests of varying "emotional impact" (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA], genital herpes, and cancer biopsy) when test results were 1) normal and 2) abnormal. We conducted our survey between June and August 2012 on the campus of an academic medical center. For each scenario, subjects were asked to rank seven methods that might be used to communicate test results (letter, unsecured email, secured email, text message, telephone call, secure Web portal, office visit) in order of acceptability.Main Outcome Measures: The main measures were the percentage of respondents who ranked a particular test result notification method favorably and the percentage who ranked it as unacceptable.Results: When test results were normal, subjects' notification preferences were generally similar for DXA, herpes and cancer biopsy, with telephone and letter ranked most favorably for all three tests. Conversely, text message and unsecured email were viewed as unacceptable notification methods for normal results by 45.0-55.0 % of subjects across all three tests. When test results were abnormal, office visits became more popular. A higher proportion of subjects ranked office visits as their most preferred notification method for our test with high "emotional impact" (cancer biopsy) (38.4 %) as compared to DXA (28.2 %) and herpes (27.9 %) (P = 0.02). For most test scenarios, younger subjects appeared to rank electronic communication modalities (secure email or Web portal) higher than older subjects, though this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.29).Conclusions: Preferences for test result notification can differ substantially depending upon the test under consideration and results of the test. Providers and health care systems should consider these factors when deciding how to communicate results to patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Poor communication between primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists is a significant problem and a detriment to effective care coordination. Inconsistency in the quality of primary-specialty communication persists even in environments with integrated delivery systems and electronic medical records (EMRs), such as the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Objective: The purpose of this study was to measure ease of communication and to characterize communication challenges perceived by PCPs and primary care personnel in the VHA, with a particular focus on challenges associated with referral communication. Design: The study utilized a convergent mixed-methods design: online cross-sectional survey measuring PCP-reported ease of communication with specialists, and semi-structured interviews characterizing primary-specialty communication challenges. Participants: 191 VHA PCPs from one regional network were surveyed (54 % response rate), and 41 VHA PCPs and primary care staff were interviewed. Main Measures/Approach: PCP-reported ease of communication mean score (survey) and recurring themes in participant descriptions of primary-specialty referral communication (interviews) were analyzed. Key Results: Among PCPs, ease-of-communication ratings were highest for women's health and mental health (mean score of 2.3 on a scale of 1-3 in both), and lowest for cardiothoracic surgery and neurology (mean scores of 1.3 and 1.6, respectively). Primary care personnel experienced challenges communicating with specialists via the EMR system, including difficulty in communicating special requests for appointments within a certain time frame and frequent rejection of referral requests due to rigid informational requirements. When faced with these challenges, PCPs reported using strategies such as telephone and e-mail contact with specialists with whom they had established relationships, as well as the use of an EMR-based referral innovation called 'eConsults' as an alternative to a traditional referral. Conclusions: Primary-specialty communication is a continuing challenge that varies by specialty and may be associated with the likelihood of an established connection already in place between specialty and primary care. Improvement in EMR systems is needed, with more flexibility for the communication of special requests. Building relationships between PCPs and specialists may also facilitate referral communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mandates disclosure of large-scale adverse events to patients, even if risk of harm is not clearly present. Concerns about past disclosures warranted further examination of the impact of this policy. OBJECTIVE: Through a collaborative partnership between VA leaders, policymakers, researchers and stakeholders, the objective was to empirically identify critical aspects of disclosure processes as a first step towards improving future disclosures. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants at nine VA facilities where recent disclosures took place. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-seven stakeholders participated in the interviews: 38 employees, 28 leaders (from facilities, regions and national offices), 27 Veteran patients and family members, and four congressional staff members. APPROACH: Facility and regional leaders were interviewed by telephone, followed by a two-day site visit where employees, patients and family members were interviewed face-to-face. National leaders and congressional staff also completed telephone interviews. Interviews were analyzed using rapid qualitative assessment processes. Themes were mapped to the stages of the Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication model: pre-crisis, initial event, maintenance, resolution and evaluation. KEY RESULTS: Many areas for improvement during disclosure were identified, such as preparing facilities better (pre-crisis), creating rapid communications, modifying disclosure language, addressing perceptions of harm, reducing complexity, and seeking assistance from others (initial event), managing communication with other stakeholders (maintenance), minimizing effects on staff and improving trust (resolution), and addressing facilities' needs (evaluation). CONCLUSIONS: Through the partnership, five recommendations to improve disclosures during each stage of communication have been widely disseminated throughout the VA using non-academic strategies. Some improvements have been made; other recommendations will be addressed through implementation of a large-scale adverse event disclosure toolkit. These toolkit strategies will enable leaders to provide timely and transparent information to patients and families, while reducing the burden on employees and the healthcare system during these events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Patients' willingness to discuss costs of treatment alternatives with their physicians is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To explore public attitudes toward doctor-patient discussions of insurer and out-of-pocket costs and to examine whether several possible communication strategies might enhance patient receptivity to discussing costs with their physicians. DESIGN: Focus group discussions and pre-discussion and post-discussion questionnaires. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and eleven insured individuals with mean age of 48 years, 51 % female, 34 % African American, 27 % Latino, and 50 % with incomes below 300 % of the federal poverty threshold, participated in 22 focus groups in Santa Monica, CA and in the Washington, DC metro area. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Attitudes toward discussing out-of-pocket and insurer costs with physicians, and towards physicians' role in controlling costs; receptivity toward recommended communication strategies regarding costs. KEY RESULTS: Participants expressed more willingness to talk to doctors about personal costs than insurer costs. Older participants and sicker participants were more willing to talk to the doctor about all costs than younger and healthier participants ( OR = 1.8, p = 0.004; OR = 1.6, p = 0.027 respectively). Participants who face cost-related barriers to accessing health care were in greater agreement than others that doctors should play a role in reducing out-of-pocket costs ( OR = 2.4, p = 0.011). Participants did not endorse recommended communication strategies for discussing costs in the clinical encounter. In contrast, participants stated that trust in one's physician would enhance their willingness to discuss costs. Perceived impediments to discussing costs included rushed, impersonal visits, and clinicians who are insufficiently informed about costs. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that trusting relationships may be more conducive than any particular discussion strategy to facilitating doctor-patient discussions of health care costs. Better public understanding of how medical decisions affect insurer costs and how such costs ultimately affect patients personally will be necessary if discussions about insurer costs are to occur in the clinical encounter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making improves value-concordant decision-making around prostate cancer screening (PrCS). Yet, PrCS discussions remain complex, challenging and often emotional for physicians and average-risk men. OBJECTIVE: In July 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to identify priorities for funding agencies and development groups to promote evidence-based, value-concordant decisions between men at average risk for prostate cancer and their physicians. DESIGN: Two-day multidisciplinary expert panel in Atlanta, Georgia, with structured discussions and formal consensus processes. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen panelists represented diverse specialties (primary care, medical oncology, urology), disciplines (sociology, communication, medical education, clinical epidemiology) and market sectors (patient advocacy groups, Federal funding agencies, guideline-development organizations). MAIN MEASURES: Panelists used guiding interactional and evaluation models to identify and rate strategies that might improve PrCS discussions and decisions for physicians, patients and health systems/society. Efficacy was defined as the likelihood of each strategy to impact outcomes. Effort was defined as the relative amount of effort to develop, implement and sustain the strategy. Each strategy was rated (1-7 scale; 7 = maximum) using group process software (ThinkTank). For each group, intervention strategies were grouped as financial/regulatory, educational, communication or attitudinal levers. For each strategy, barriers were identified. KEY RESULTS: Highly ranked strategies to improve value-concordant shared decision-making (SDM) included: changing outpatient clinic visit reimbursement to reward SDM; development of evidence-based, technology-assisted, point-of-service tools for physicians and patients; reframing confusing prostate cancer screening messages; providing pre-visit decision support interventions; utilizing electronic health records to promote benchmarking/best practices; providing additional training for physicians around value-concordant decision-making; and using re-accreditation to promote training. CONCLUSIONS: Conference outcomes present an expert consensus of strategies likely to improve value-concordant prostate cancer screening decisions. In addition, the methodology used to obtain agreement provides a model of successful collaboration around this and future controversial cancer screening issues, which may be of interest to funding agencies, educators and policy makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Although interns are expected to be competent in handoff communication, it is currently unclear what level of exposure, participation, and comfort medical students have with handoffs prior to graduation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to characterize passive and active involvement of third-year medical students in the major components of the handoff process. DESIGN: An anonymous voluntary retrospective cross-sectional survey administered in 2010. PARTICIPANTS: Rising fourth-year students at two large urban private medical schools. MAIN MEASURES: Participation and confidence in active and passive behaviors related to written signout and verbal handoffs during participants' third-year clerkships. KEY RESULTS: Seventy percent of students ( n = 204) responded. As third-year medical students, they reported frequent participation in handoffs, such as updating a written signout for a previously admitted patient (58 %). Students who reported frequent participation (at least weekly) in handoff tasks were more likely to report being confident in that task (e.g., giving verbal handoff 62 % vs. 19 %, p < 0.001). Students at one site that did not have a handoff policy for medical students reported greater participation, more confidence, and less desire for training. Nearly all students believed they had witnessed an error in written signout (98 %) and almost two-thirds witnessed an error due to verbal handoffs (64 %). CONCLUSIONS: During their third year, many medical students are participating in handoffs, although reported rates differ across training environments. Medical schools should consider the appropriate level of competence for medical student participation in handoffs, and implement corresponding curricula and assessment tools to ensure that medical students are able to effectively conduct handoffs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Poor quality handoffs have been identified as a major patient safety issue. In residency programs, problematic handoffs may be an unintended consequence of duty-hour restrictions, and key data are frequently omitted from written handoffs because of the lack of standardization of content. OBJECTIVE: Determine whether an intervention that facilitates face-to-face communication supported by an electronic template improves the quality and safety of handoffs. DESIGN: Before-after trial. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-nine interns providing nighttime coverage over 132 intern shifts, representing ∼9,200 handoffs. INTERVENTIONS: Two interventions were implemented serially-an alteration of the shift model to facilitate face-to-face verbal communication between the primary and nighttime covering physicians and an electronic template for the day-to-night handoff. MEASUREMENTS: Overall satisfaction and handoff quality were measured using a survey tool administered at the end of each intern shift. Written handoff quality, specifically the documentation of key components, was also assessed before and after the template intervention by study investigators. Interns used the survey tool to report patient safety events related to poor quality handoffs, which were validated by study investigators. RESULTS: In adjusted analyses comparing intern cohorts with similar levels of training, overall satisfaction with the new handoff processes improved significantly ( p < 0.001) post intervention. Verbal handoff quality (4/10 measures) and written handoff quality (5/6 measures) also improved significantly. Study investigators also found significant improvement in documentation of key components in the written handoff. Interns reported significantly fewer reported data omissions ( p = 0.001) and a non-significant reduction in near misses ( p = 0.056), but no significant difference in adverse events ( p = 0.41) post intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Redesign of shift models common in residency programs to minimize the number of handoffs and facilitate face-to-face communication, along with implementation of electronic handoff templates, improves the quality of handoffs in a learning environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]