Top

Published in:

01-10-2020 | Care | Original Research

Assessing Patients’ Perceptions of Clinician Communication: Acceptability of Brief Point-of-Care Surveys in Primary Care

Authors: Eileen M. Dryden, PhD, Justeen K. Hyde, PhD, Jolie B. Wormwood, PhD, Juliet Wu, BS, Rodney Calloway, BS, Sarah L. Cutrona, MD, MPH, Glyn Elwyn, MD, PhD, Gemmae M. Fix, PhD, Michelle B. Orner, MPH, Stephanie L. Shimada, PhD, Barbara G. Bokhour, PhD

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 10/2020

Abstract

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.

Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press; 2001.

Epstein RM, Street RL. The Values and Value of Patient-Centered Care. Ann Fam Med 2011;9(2):100-3. doi:https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1239CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Epstein RM, Franks P, Fiscella K, et al. Measuring patient-centered communication in patient-physician consultations: theoretical and practical issues. Soc Sci Med 2005;61(7):1516-28. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.02.001CrossRefPubMed

Franks P, Jerant AF, Fiscella K, Shields CG, Tancredi DJ, Epstein RM. Studying physician effects on patient outcomes: Physician interactional style and performance on quality of care indicators. Soc Sci Med 2006;62(2):422-32. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.05.027CrossRefPubMed

Barr PJ, Thompson R, Walsh T, Grande SW, Ozanne EM, Elwyn G. The psychometric properties of CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of the shared decision-making process. J Med Internet Res 2014;16(1):e2. doi:https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3085CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Elwyn G, Barr PJ, Grande SW, Thompson R, Walsh T, Ozanne EM. Developing CollaboRATE: A fast and frugal patient-reported measure of shared decision making in clinical encounters. Patient Educ Couns 2013;93(1):102-7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.05.009CrossRefPubMed

Makoul G, Krupat E, Chang C-H. Measuring patient views of physician communication skills: Development and testing of the Communication Assessment Tool. Patient Educ Couns 2007;67(3):333-42. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.05.005CrossRefPubMed

Meterko MM, Radwin LE, Bokhour BG. Measuring Patient-Centered Care: A Brief Measure for Use in Point-of-Care Assessments (White Paper). 2015.

DiRocco DN, Day SC. Obtaining patient feedback at point of service using electronic kiosks. Am J Manag Care 2011;17(7):e270-6.PubMed

10.

LaVela SL, Gallan AS. Evaluation and measurement of patient experience. Patient Exp J 2014;1(1):28-36.

11.

Madson MB, Loignon AC, Lane C. Training in motivational interviewing: a systematic review. J Subst Abus Treat 2009;36(1):101-9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2008.05.005CrossRef

12.

Söderlund LL, Madson MB, Rubak S, Nilsen P. A systematic review of motivational interviewing training for general health care practitioners. Patient Educ Couns 2011;84(1):16-26. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.06.025CrossRefPubMed

13.

Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012(6):CD000259. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub3CrossRef

14.

Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, O’Brien MA, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006(2):Cd000259. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub2

15.

Rao JK, Anderson LA, Inui TS, Frankel RM. Communication interventions make a difference in conversations between physicians and patients: a systematic review of the evidence. Med Care 2007;45(4):340-9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000254516.04961.d5CrossRefPubMed

16.

Hysong SJ, Best RG, Pugh JA. Audit and feedback and clinical practice guideline adherence: making feedback actionable. Implement Sci 2006;1:9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-1-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Mailhot J Improving Patient Care in a More Timely Manner at Veteran’s Administration (VA): Healthcare Systems Through the Use of Instant Survey Systems [Capstone in Health Informatics]. San Diego, California: National University; 2016.

18.

Street RL, Jr., Mazor KM. Clinician-patient communication measures: drilling down into assumptions, approaches, and analyses. Patient Educ Couns 2017;100(8):1612-8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2017.03.021CrossRefPubMed

19.

Elwyn G collaboRATE. http://www.glynelwyn.com/collaborate.html. Accessed 7 Nov 2019.

20.

Bowen DJ, Kreuter M, Spring B, et al. How we design feasibility studies. Am J Prev Med 2009;36(5):452-7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.002CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Barr PJ, Forcino RC, Thompson R, et al. Evaluating CollaboRATE in a clinical setting: analysis of mode effects on scores, response rates and costs of data collection. BMJ Open 2017;7(3):e014681. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014681CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Kushniruk A, Patel V, Cimino JJ, Barrows RA. Cognitive evaluation of the user interface and vocabulary of an outpatient information system. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp 1996:22-6.

23.

Enders CK, Tofighi D. Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: a new look at an old issue. Psychol Methods 2007;12(2):121-38. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.12.2.121CrossRefPubMed

24.

NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Version 12, 2018 ed: QSR International Pty Ltd.; 2018.

25.

Ritchie J, Spencer L. Chapter 9: Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Burgess RG, Bryman A, editors. Analyzing qualitative data. London: Routledge; 1994: 173-94.CrossRef

26.

Institute for Healthcare Improvement, IHI Leadership Alliance. New Rules for Radical Redesign of Health Care. http://www.ihi.org/Engage/collaboratives/LeadershipAlliance/Documents/IHILeadershipAlliance_NewRulesRadicalRedesign.pdf. Accessed 21 Aug 2019.

27.

Gaudet T, Kligler B. Whole Health in the Whole System of the Veterans Administration: How Will We Know We Have Reached This Future State? J Altern Complement Med 2019;25(S1):S7-S11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2018.29061.gauCrossRefPubMed

28.

Yarnall KS, Pollak KI, Ostbye T, Krause KM, Michener JL. Primary care: is there enough time for prevention? Am J Public Health 2003;93(4):635-41. doi:https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.93.4.635CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Bokhour BG, Cutrona SL. Time to Listen More and Talk Less. J Gen Intern Med 2019;34(1):1-2. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4711-4CrossRefPubMed

30.

Street RL, Jr., Liu L, Farber NJ, et al. Keystrokes, Mouse Clicks, and Gazing at the Computer: How Physician Interaction with the EHR Affects Patient Participation. J Gen Intern Med 2018;33(4):423-8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-017-4228-2CrossRefPubMed

31.

Allikmets S, Vink JP. The benefits of peer-led teaching in medical education. Adv Med Educ Pract 2016;7:329-30. doi:https://doi.org/10.2147/amep.S107776CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Eisen S, Sukhani S, Brightwell A, Stoneham S, Long A. Peer mentoring: evaluation of a novel programme in paediatrics. Arch Dis Child 2014;99(2):142-6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2013-304277CrossRefPubMed

33.

Palter VN, Beyfuss KA, Jokhio AR, Ryzynski A, Ashamalla S. Peer coaching to teach faculty surgeons an advanced laparoscopic skill: A randomized controlled trial. Surgery 2016;160(5):1392-9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.04.032CrossRefPubMed

34.

Richer M-C, Ritchie J, Marchionni C. Appreciative inquiry in health care. Br J Healthc Manag. 2010;16:164-72. doi:https://doi.org/10.12968/bjhc.2010.16.4.47399CrossRef

35.

Carter CA, Ruhe MC, Weyer S, Litaker D, Fry RE, Stange KC. An appreciative inquiry approach to practice improvement and transformative change in health care settings. Qual Manag Health Care 2007;16(3):194-204. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.Qmh.0000281055.15177.79CrossRefPubMed

36.

Havens DS, Wood SO, Leeman J. Improving nursing practice and patient care: building capacity with appreciative inquiry. J Nurs Adm 2006;36(10):463-70. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00005110-200610000-00007CrossRefPubMed

37.

Ware JE, Jr., Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30(6):473-83.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Assessing Patients’ Perceptions of Clinician Communication: Acceptability of Brief Point-of-Care Surveys in Primary Care
Authors: Eileen M. Dryden, PhD
Justeen K. Hyde, PhD
Jolie B. Wormwood, PhD
Juliet Wu, BS
Rodney Calloway, BS
Sarah L. Cutrona, MD, MPH
Glyn Elwyn, MD, PhD
Gemmae M. Fix, PhD
Michelle B. Orner, MPH
Stephanie L. Shimada, PhD
Barbara G. Bokhour, PhD
Publication date: 01-10-2020
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Keyword: Care
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 10/2020
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06062-z

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Heart Failure Video

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Assessing Patients’ Perceptions of Clinician Communication: Acceptability of Brief Point-of-Care Surveys in Primary Care

Abstract

Background

Objective

Design

Participants

Main Measure(s)

Key Results

Conclusions

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

Incentivised to exercise

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Objective

Design

Participants

Main Measure(s)

Key Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2020

Primary Care Population Management for COVID-19 Patients

Modifiable Factors Associated with Non-adherence to Antihypertensive or Antihyperlipidemic Drugs Are Dissimilar: a Multicenter Study Among Patients with Diabetes in Indonesia

Association of the Patient-Centered Medical Home Implementation with Chronic Disease Quality in Patients with Multimorbidity

Determinants of Trustworthiness to Conduct Medical Research: Findings from Focus Groups Conducted with Racially and Ethnically Diverse Adults

The Climate Crisis and the Exam Room

Lobbying Expenditures of the Health Sector During the COVID-19 Pandemic

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

Incentivised to exercise

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page