Search

Objective Discussing sensitive topics (eg, medical uncertainty, social issues, non-adherence) during ward rounds is challenging and may negatively impact patient satisfaction with the healthcare they are receiving. In the previous multicentre randomised BEDSIDE-OUTSIDE trial focusing on communication during ward rounds, we investigated the interplay between sensitive topics and low reported satisfaction with care.Design Pre-planned secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. For this analysis data of the original trial was pooled across intervention groups.Setting Three Swiss teaching hospitals.Participants Adult patients hospitalised for medical care.Interventions We analysed predefined sensitive health topics and specific elements of communication from audiotapes recorded during ward rounds, for both patients dealing with and without sensitive topics.Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary endpoint was overall patient satisfaction with care; measured on a Visual Analogue Scale from 0 to 100. Secondary endpoints included duration of ward rounds and further satisfaction outcomes.Results Of the 919 included patients, 474 had at least one sensitive topic including medical uncertainty (n=251), psychiatric comorbidities (n=161), tumour diagnosis (n=137) and social issues (n=125). Compared with patients without sensitive topics, patients with sensitive topics reported lower satisfaction with care (mean (SD), 87.7 (±14.6) vs 90.2 (±12.1), adjusted difference −2.5 (95% CI −4.28 to −0.72), p=0.006. Among patients with sensitive topics, risk factors for low satisfaction included several parameters concerning patient–physician interaction such as disagreements during ward rounds (mean (SD), 14/212 (6.6%) vs 41/254 (16.1%), adjusted OR 2.78 (95% CI 1.47 to 5.27), p=0.002).Conclusions A large proportion of medical inpatients must deal with sensitive health topics. This is associated with lower satisfaction with care, particularly if the patient perceives the interaction with doctors during ward rounds as unsatisfactory. Educating physicians on specific communication techniques may help improve care for these patients.Trial registration number NCT03210987.

AimTo investigate the impact of site-specific inter-professional small-group communication skills training (CST) that incorporates critical incident approaches to learning on patient satisfaction with communication.SettingRehabilitation clinic specialized for spinal cord injury/disorder (SCI/D).MethodsRetrospective observational cohort study design using patient and health-professional self-report data. Data for patient satisfaction with communication were collected in 2014 (existing records) and each year from 2015 to 2021 (post-program; volunteers) using the MECON survey.ResultsFifteen basic (n = 161 participants), 16 refresher (n = 84), and five short (n = 17) CST seminars were conducted. Overall, 262 employees (105 physicians, 63 nurses, 36 physio- and occupational therapists, and 58 others) participated; 92 participants (response rate 37.6%) responded to feedback surveys. They rated the seminars positive concerning the alternation between theory, discussion, and practical exercise in 91.3%, and rated the length of the training ideal in 80.2%. Post-program patient satisfaction overall increased from 83.1% (confidence interval (CI) 2.6%) to 90% (CI 0.8%; R2 = 0.776; p= 0.004). It was higher in specific communication-related topics: “receiving information” (81.1%, CI 3.1–90.2%, CI 1.0%; p = 0.003), “being able to bring in concerns” (83%, CI 1.0–90.8%; R2 = 0.707; p = 0.009) and “being treated with respect” (89.4%, CI 2.6–94.4%, CI 0.8%; R2 = 0.708; p = 0.004).Practice implicationsInter-professional CST is feasible and well accepted by professionals from various professional groups. During seven years of continuous training, independent patient ratings of satisfaction with professional communication have improved significantly. Participants attest to the training's high credibility and usefulness in everyday life.

BACKGROUND: We recently compared the effects of bedside and outside the room ward rounds on patients’ knowledge about their medical care. Here, we report preferences of medical and nursing staff members regarding outside versus bedside ward rounds. METHODS: Within this ancillary project of a large multicentre randomised controlled trial, we prospectively conducted a survey of medical and nursing staff members participating in the weekly consultant ward rounds in the internal medicine division of three Swiss teaching hospitals between July 2017 and October 2019. Participants were asked about their preferences on outside versus bedside ward rounds. The primary endpoint was satisfaction of healthcare workers with the ward round measured with a visual analogue scale from 0 to 100. RESULTS: Between July 2017 and October 2019, 919 patients were included in the trial, and we received 891 survey responses (nurses 15.6%, residents 26.8%, attending physicians 29.6%, consultants 7.8% and chief physicians 20.2%. In the overall analysis, mean (± standard deviation) satisfaction of healthcare workers was higher with outside the room than bedside ward rounds (78.03 ± 16.96 versus 68.25 ± 21.10 respectively; age-, gender- and centre-adjusted difference of –10.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] –12.73 to –8.19; p

Objectives The impact of the quality of discharge communication between physicians and their patients is critical on patients’ health outcomes. Nevertheless, low recall of information given to patients at discharge from emergency departments (EDs) is a well-documented problem. Therefore, we investigated the outcomes and related benefits of two different communication strategies: Physicians were instructed to either use empathy (E) or information structuring (S) skills hypothesizing superior recall by patients in the S group. Methods For the direct comparison of two communication strategies at discharge, physicians were cluster-randomized to an E or a S skills training. Feasibility was measured by training completion rates. Outcomes were measured in patients immediately after discharge, after 7, and 30 days. Primary outcome was patients’ immediate recall of discharge information. Secondary outcomes were feasibility of training implementation, patients’ adherence to recommendations and satisfaction, as well as the patient-physician relationship. Results Of 117 eligible physicians, 80 (68.4%) completed the training. Out of 256 patients randomized to one of the two training groups (E: 146 and S: 119) 196 completed the post-discharge assessment. Patients’ immediate recall of discharge information was superior in patients in the S-group vs. E-group. Patients in the S-group adhered to more recommendations within 30 days (p = .002), and were more likely to recommend the physician to family and friends (p = .021). No differences were found on other assessed outcome domains. Conclusions and practice Implications Immediate recall and subsequent adherence to recommendations were higher in the S group. Feasibility was shown by a 69.6% completion rate of trainings. Thus, trainings of discharge information structuring are feasible and improve patients’ recall, and may therefore improve quality of care in the ED.

ObjectivesThe impact of the quality of discharge communication between physicians and their patients is critical on patients' health outcomes. Nevertheless, low recall of information given to patients at discharge from emergency departments (EDs) is a well-documented problem. Therefore, we investigated the outcomes and related benefits of two different communication strategies: Physicians were instructed to either use empathy (E) or information structuring (S) skills hypothesizing superior recall by patients in the S group.MethodsFor the direct comparison of two communication strategies at discharge, physicians were cluster-randomized to an E or a S skills training. Feasibility was measured by training completion rates. Outcomes were measured in patients immediately after discharge, after 7, and 30 days. Primary outcome was patients' immediate recall of discharge information. Secondary outcomes were feasibility of training implementation, patients' adherence to recommendations and satisfaction, as well as the patient-physician relationship.ResultsOf 117 eligible physicians, 80 (68.4%) completed the training. Out of 256 patients randomized to one of the two training groups (E: 146 and S: 119) 196 completed the post-discharge assessment. Patients' immediate recall of discharge information was superior in patients in the S-group vs. E-group. Patients in the S-group adhered to more recommendations within 30 days (p = .002), and were more likely to recommend the physician to family and friends (p = .021). No differences were found on other assessed outcome domains.Conclusions and practice implicationsImmediate recall and subsequent adherence to recommendations were higher in the S group. Feasibility was shown by a 69.6% completion rate of trainings. Thus, trainings of discharge information structuring are feasible and improve patients' recall, and may therefore improve quality of care in the ED.

Abstract Background In todays’ super-diverse societies, communication and interaction in clinical encounters are increasingly shaped by linguistic, cultural, social and ethnic complexities. It is crucial to better understand the difficulties patients with migration background and healthcare professionals experience in their shared clinical encounters and to explore ethical aspects involved. Methods We accompanied 32 migrant patients (16 of Albanian and Turkish origin each) during their medical encounters at two outpatient clinics using an ethnographic approach (participant observation and semi-structured interviews with patients and healthcare professionals). Overall, data of 34 interviews with patients and physicians on how they perceived their encounter and which difficulties they experienced are presented. We contrasted the perspectives on the difficult aspects and explore ethical questions surrounding the involved issues. Results Patients and physicians describe similar problem areas, but they have diverging perspectives on them. Two main themes were identified by both patients and physicians: >patients’ behaviour in relation to doctors’ advice< and > relationship issues

Background: Reflective Writing (RW) is increasingly being implemented in medical education. Feedback to students’ reflective writing (RW) is essential, but resources for individualized feedback often lack. We aimed to determine whether general practitioners (GPs) teaching students clinical skills could also provide feedback to RW and whether an instruction letter specific to RW feedback increases students’ satisfaction. Methods: GPs were randomized to the two study arms using block randomization. GPs in both groups received an instruction letter on giving students feedback on clinical skills. Additionally, intervention group GPs received specific instructions on providing feedback to students’ RW. Students completed satisfaction questionnaires on feedback received on clinical skills and RW. T-tests were employed for all statistical analysis to compare groups. Results: Eighty-three out of 134 physicians participated: 38 were randomized to the control, 45 to the intervention group. Students were very satisfied with the feedback on RW and clinical skills regardless of tutors’ group allocation. A specific instruction letter had no additional effect on students’ satisfaction. Conclusion: Based on student satisfaction, GPs who give students feedback on clinical skills are also well suited to provide feedback on RW. This approach can facilitate the introduction of mandatory RW into the regular medical curriculum.

OBJECTIVE: In an emergency department, discharge communication represents a key step in medical care. The efficiency of this doctor-patient interaction could be hampered by two bounds: The limited time in emergency care and patients’ mind’s limited capacity to encode, store and maintain information. Such limitations are the focus of this study. Specifically, we examine the number of items physicians deem crucial in a discharge communication and the necessary time estimated to present them. METHODS: A vignette of a patient with chest pain was presented to 47 physicians (38 internists, 9 emergency physicians). Physicians were offered a list of 81 items possibly conveyed to patients and asked to select the important ones assuming a discharge interaction of 15 minutes. Additionally, 7 experts estimated the time required to communicate each item. RESULTS: Physicians’ mean clinical experience was 10.1 years. From the list of 81 items, physicians selected, on average, 36 items (Range: 20–57). Experts rated the time necessary to communicate this subset to be 44.5 minutes – almost three times the preset 15 minutes. While emergency physicians, relative to internists, selected an insignificantly lower number of items (31.6 ± 6.2 vs. 37.4 ± 10.2), the time estimated for communicating the information was significantly shorter (36.9 ± 6.3 vs. 46.4 ± 13.5). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians in our study proved to be miscalibrated with regard to the number of items they could realistically discuss in a discharge communication. We conclude that there is an obvious need to train physicians in skills of implementing efficient discharge communication.