Dataset Information

Effect of patient completed agenda forms and doctors' education about the agenda on the outcome of consultations: randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of patient completed agenda forms for the consultation and doctors' education on identifying patients' agendas on the outcome of consultations. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: General practices in Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire, United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 46 general practitioners and 976 patients. INTERVENTIONS: Education for general practitioners, with an embedded clustered randomised controlled trial of a patient agenda form. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of problems identified, time required to manage each problem, duration of consultations, number of problems raised after the doctor considered the consultation finished ("by the way" questions), and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Data were available from 45 doctors (98%) and 857 patients (88%). The number of problems identified in each consultation increased by 0.2 (95% confidence interval 0.1 to 0.4) with the agenda form, by 0.3 (0.1 to 0.6) with education, and by 0.5 (0.3 to 0.7) with both interventions. The time required to manage each problem was not affected. The duration of consultations with the agenda form was increased by 0.9 minutes (0.3 to 1.5 minutes) and with the combined intervention by 1.9 minutes (1.0 to 2.8 minutes). Patient satisfaction with the depth of the doctor-patient relationship was increased with the agenda form. The occurrence of "by the way" presentations did not change. CONCLUSION: A patient completed agenda form before the consultation or general practitioner education about the agenda form, or both, enabled the identification of more problems in consultations even though consultations were longer.

SUBMITTER: Middleton JF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1471934 | biostudies-literature | 2006 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of patient completed agenda forms and doctors' education about the agenda on the outcome of consultations: randomised controlled trial.

Middleton J F JF McKinley R K RK Gillies C L CL

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20060517 7552

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the effect of patient completed agenda forms for the consultation and doctors' education on identifying patients' agendas on the outcome of consultations.<h4>Design</h4>Randomised controlled trial.<h4>Setting</h4>General practices in Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire, United Kingdom.<h4>Participants</h4>46 general practitioners and 976 patients.<h4>Interventions</h4>Education for general practitioners, with an embedded clustered randomised controlled trial of a patie ...[more]

PMID: 16707508

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo pilot test the proposed DiaPROM trial components and address uncertainties associated with conducting a full-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate whether such a trial is feasible.DesignTwo-arm pilot RCT.ParticipantsAdults aged ≥18-39 years, with minimum 1 year type 1 diabetes duration, attending outpatient follow-up. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, severe cognitive, somatic or psychiatric conditions and impaired vision.Randomisation and interventionAll participants completed electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) prior to the annual diabetes consultation. Using computer-generated block-randomisation without blinding, we assigned participants in a 1:1 ratio stratified by sex to receive standard care or an intervention. Physicians reviewed diabetes distress scores (Problem Areas In Diabetes scale) and referred individuals with scores ≥30 or single item(s) ≥3 to minimum two diabetes nurse consultations where reported problems were reviewed and discussed.OutcomesRecruitment and retention rates; participants perceptions about intervention components. Variance and estimated between-group differences in follow-up scores (Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), WHO 5-Well-being Index, Perceived Competence for Diabetes Scale and glycaemic control) and DDS correlation with baseline scores, to assist sample size calculations.ResultsWe randomised 80 participants to the control or intervention arm (one participant was later excluded). 23/39 intervention arm participants qualified for additional consultations and 17 attended. 67/79 attended the 12-month follow-up (15.2% attrition); 5/17 referred to additional consultations were lost to follow-up (29.4% attrition). Participants reported PROMs as relevant (84.6%) and acceptable (97.4%) but rated the usefulness of consultations as moderate to low. Baseline mean±SD DDS score was 2.1±0.69; DDS SD was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.60 to 0.86) at follow-up; correlation between baseline and follow-up DDS scores was 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7 to 0.9).ConclusionsThe pilot trial revealed need for intervention modifications ahead of a full-scale trial to evaluate use of PROMs in diabetes consultations. Specifically, participant acceptability and intervention implementation need further investigation.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough diabetes distress is found to be associated with decreased glycaemic control among adults with type 1 diabetes, the psychological and emotional impact of living with the condition is often not recognised and often under-reported in diabetes care. Therefore, regular assessment of diabetes distress is recommended. Assessment of diabetes distress using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical practice has the potential to enhance care for people with diabetes by identifying problems and improving patient-clinician communication. In this study protocol, we describe a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) aiming to test the feasibility of all components of an empowerment-based intervention using PROMs as dialogue support in clinical diabetes consultations, and to address the uncertainties associated with running a fully powered evaluation study.Methods and analysisWe will undertake a two-arm pilot RCT of an intervention using the Problem Areas In Diabetes (PAID) scale in clinical diabetes consultations in order to conclude whether a fully powered trial is appropriate and/or feasible. The study will also include qualitative indepth interviews with participants and healthcare providers. Our objectives are to (1) evaluate the recruitment procedures and attrition rates; (2) evaluate the performance of the randomisation procedure; (3) evaluate the participants' mean scores on the outcome measures before and after the intervention; (4) evaluate if the intervention consultations are acceptable and feasible; and (5) explore patients' and healthcare providers' experiences with the use of PAID as dialogue support and empowerment-based communication skills in clinical diabetes consultations. The quantitative data analysis includes descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, means, SD and CI). For the qualitative data, we will perform thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained from the Western Norway Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics (2017/1506/REC west). We will present the findings from the study phases at national and international conferences and submit manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals and popular science journals.Trial registration numberNCT03471104; Pre-results.

Project description:The objectives of this study were to assess burnout in a sample of general practitioners (GPs), to determine factors associated with depersonalisation and to investigate its impact on doctors' consultations with patients.Cross-sectional, postal survey of GPs using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). Patient survey and tape-recording of consultations for a subsample of respondents stratified by their MBI scores, gender and duration of General Medical Council registration.UK general practice.GPs within NHS Essex.Scores on MBI subscales (depersonalisation, emotional exhaustion, personal accomplishment); scores on Doctors' Interpersonal Skills Questionnaire and patient-centredness scores attributed to tape-recorded consultations by independent observers.In the postal survey, 564/789 (71%) GPs completed the MBI. High levels of emotional exhaustion (261/564 doctors, 46%) and depersonalisation (237 doctors, 42%) and low levels of personal accomplishment (190 doctors, 34%) were reported. Depersonalisation scores were related to characteristics of the doctor and the practice. Male doctors reported significantly higher (p<0.001) depersonalisation than female doctors. Doctors registered with the General Medical Council under 20 years had significantly higher (p=0.005) depersonalisation scores than those registered for longer. Doctors in group practices had significantly higher (p=0.001) depersonalisation scores than single-handed practitioners. Thirty-eight doctors agreed to complete the patient survey (n=1876 patients) and audio-record consultations (n=760 consultations). Depersonalised doctors were significantly more likely (p=0.03) to consult with patients who reported seeing their 'usual doctor'. There were no significant associations between doctors' depersonalisation and their patient-rated interpersonal skills or observed patient-centredness.This is the largest number of doctors completing the MBI with the highest levels of depersonalisation reported. Despite experiencing substantial depersonalisation, doctors' feelings of burnout were not detected by patients or independent observers. Such levels of burnout are, however, worrying and imply a need for action by doctors themselves, their medical colleagues, professional bodies, healthcare organisations and the Department of Health.

Project description:ObjectivesMeta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD) from randomised trials is superior to using published summary data since it facilitates subgroup and multiple variable analyses. Guidelines and funders expect that researchers share IPD for bona fide analyses, but in practice, this is done variably. Here, we report the experience of obtaining IPD for two collaborative analysis studies.SettingTwo linked studies required IPD from published randomised trials. The leading researchers for eligible trials were approached and asked to share IPD including trial characteristics, patient demographics, baseline clinical data and outcome measures.ParticipantsParticipants in eligible randomised controlled trials included patients with or at risk of cognitive decline/vascular events.Primary and secondary outcome measuresNumbers (%) of trials where the leading researcher responded favourably/negatively or did not respond. If negative, reasons behind the response were collected. If positive, methods used to share IPD were recorded.ResultsAcross the two studies, 391 completed trials were identified. Email addresses for researchers were found for 313 (80%) of the trials. One hundred and forty-eight (47%) researchers did not respond despite being sent multiple emails. Following contact, positive initial responses were received from 92 researchers, resulting in IPD being shared for 78 trials. Eighty-seven (28%) researchers declined to share data; justifications were recorded. The median time from first request to accessing data in one study was 241 (IQR 383.3) days. IPD sources included: direct from researcher, via academic trial funders repository and a website requiring remote analysis of commercial data. Where data were shared, a variety of methods were used to transfer data.ConclusionSharing of IPD from trials is desirable and a requirement of many funding bodies. However, accessing IPD faces multiple challenges including refusals to share, delays in access to data and having to perform analyses on a remote website.Trial registrationNot applicable.

Project description:BackgroundDiabetes is now a global epidemic, but most cases are now in low- and middle-income countries. Diabetes self-management education (DSME) is key to enabling patients to manage their chronic condition and can reduce the occurrence of costly and devastating complications. However, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of different DSME programmes in resource limited settings.MethodsWe conducted an unblinded, parallel-group, individually-randomised controlled trial at the University of Calabar Teaching Hospital (Nigeria) to evaluate whether an intensive and systematic DSME programme, using structured guidelines, improved glycaemic control compared to the existing ad hoc patient education (clinical practice was unchanged). Eligible patients (≥18 years, HbA1c > 8.5% and physically able to participate) were randomly allocated by permuted block randomisation to participate for six months in either an intensive or conventional education group. The primary outcome was HbA1c (%) at six-months.ResultsWe randomised 59 participants to each group and obtained six-month HbA1c outcomes from 53 and 51 participants in the intensive and conventional education groups, respectively. Intensive group participants had a mean six-month HbA1c (%) of 8.4 (95% CI: 8 to 8.9), while participants in the conventional education group had a mean six-month HbA1c (%) of 10.2 (95% CI: 9.8 to 10.7). The difference was statistically (P < 0.0001) and clinically significant, with intensive group participants having HbA1c outcomes on average -1.8 (95% CI: -2.4 to -1.2) percentage points lower than conventional group participants. Results were robust to adjustment for a range of covariates and multiple imputation of missing outcome data.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the effectiveness of a structured, guideline-based DSME intervention in a LMIC setting versus a pragmatic comparator. The intervention is potentially replicable at other levels of the Nigerian healthcare system and in other LMICs, where nurses/diabetes educators can run the programme.Trial registrationPan African Clinical Trial Registry PACTR20130200047835.

Project description:BackgroundDecentralised services using outreach clinics or modern technology are methods to reduce both patient transports and costs to the healthcare system. Telemedicine consultations via videoconference are one such modality. Before new technologies are implemented, it is important to investigate both the quality of care given and the economic impact from the use of this new technology. The aim of this clinical trial was to study the quality of planned remote orthopaedic consultations by help of videoconference.MethodWe performed a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with two parallel groups: video-assisted remote consultations at a regional medical centre (RMC) as an intervention versus standard consultation in the orthopaedic outpatient clinic at the University Hospital of North Norway (UNN) as a control. The participants were patients referred to or scheduled for a consultation at the orthopaedic outpatient clinic. The orthopaedic surgeons evaluated each consultation they performed by completing a questionnaire. The primary outcome measurement was the difference in the sum score calculated from this questionnaire, which was evaluated by the non-inferiority of the intervention group. The study design was based on the intention to treat principle. Ancillary analyses regarding complications, the number of consultations per patient, operations, patients who were referred again and the duration of consultations were performed.ResultsFour-hundred patients were web-based randomised. Of these, 199 (98 %) underwent remote consultation and 190 (95 %) underwent standard consultation. The primary outcome, the sum score of the specialist evaluation, was significantly lower (i.e. 'better') at UNN compared to RMC (1.72 versus 1.82, p = 0.0030). The 90 % confidence interval (CI) for the difference in score (0.05, 0.17) was within the non-inferiority margin. The orthopaedic surgeons involved evaluated 98 % of the video-assisted consultations as 'good' or 'very good'. In the ancillary analyses, there was no significant difference between the two groups.ConclusionsThis study supports the argument that it is safe to offer video-assisted consultations for selected orthopaedic patients. We did not find any serious events related to the mode of consultation. Further assessments of the economic aspects and patient satisfaction are needed before we can recommend its wider application.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00616837.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasingly, consultations in health care settings are conducted remotely using a range of communication technologies. Email allows for 2-way text-based communication, occurring asynchronously. Studies have explored the content and nature of email consultations to understand the use, structure, and function of email consultations. Most previous content analyses of email consultations in primary care settings have been conducted in North America, and these have shown that concerns and assumptions about how email consultations work have not been realized. There has not been a UK-based content analysis of email consultations.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore and delineate the content of consultations conducted via email in English general practice by conducting a content analysis of email consultations between general practitioners (GPs) and patients.MethodsWe conducted a content analysis of anonymized email consultations between GPs and patients in 2 general practices in the United Kingdom. We examined the descriptive elements of the correspondence to ascertain when the emails were sent, the number of emails in an email consultation, and the nature of the content. We used a normative approach to analyze the content of the email consultations to explore the use and function of email consultation.ResultsWe obtained 100 email consultations from 85 patients, which totaled 262 individual emails. Most email users were older than 40 years, and over half of the users were male. The email consultations were mostly short and completed in a few days. Emails were mostly sent and received during the day. The emails were mostly clinical in content rather than administrative and covered a wide range of clinical presentations. There were 3 key themes to the use and function of the email consultations: the role of the GP and email consultation, the transactional nature of an email consultation, and the operationalization of an email consultation.ConclusionsMost cases where emails are used to have a consultation with a patient in general practice have a shorter consultation, are clinical in nature, and are resolved quickly. GPs approach email consultations using key elements similar to that of the face-to-face consultation; however, using email consultations has the potential to alter the role of the GP, leading them to engage in more administrative tasks than usual. Email consultations were not a replacement for face-to-face consultations.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the changes in productivity when scribes were used by emergency physicians in emergency departments in Australia and assess the effect of scribes on throughput.DesignRandomised, multicentre clinical trial.SettingFive emergency departments in Victoria used Australian trained scribes during their respective trial periods. Sites were broadly representative of Australian emergency departments: public (urban, tertiary, regional referral, paediatric) and private, not for profit.Participants88 physicians who were permanent, salaried employees working more than one shift a week and were either emergency consultants or senior registrars in their final year of training; 12 scribes trained at one site and rotated to each study site.InterventionsPhysicians worked their routine shifts and were randomly allocated a scribe for the duration of their shift. Each site required a minimum of 100 scribed and non-scribed shifts, from November 2015 to January 2018.Main outcome measuresPhysicians' productivity (total patients, primary patients); patient throughput (door-to-doctor time, length of stay); physicians' productivity in emergency department regions. Self reported harms of scribes were analysed, and a cost-benefit analysis was done.ResultsData were collected from 589 scribed shifts (5098 patients) and 3296 non-scribed shifts (23 838 patients). Scribes increased physicians' productivity from 1.13 (95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.17) to 1.31 (1.25 to 1.38) patients per hour per doctor, representing a 15.9% gain. Primary consultations increased from 0.83 (0.81 to 0.85) to 1.04 (0.98 to 1.11) patients per hour per doctor, representing a 25.6% gain. No change was seen in door-to-doctor time. Median length of stay reduced from 192 (interquartile range 108-311) minutes to 173 (96-208) minutes, representing a 19 minute reduction (P<0.001). The greatest gains were achieved by placing scribes with senior doctors at triage, the least by using them in sub-acute/fast track regions. No significant harm involving scribes was reported. The cost-benefit analysis based on productivity and throughput gains showed a favourable financial position with use of scribes.ConclusionsScribes improved emergency physicians' productivity, particularly during primary consultations, and decreased patients' length of stay. Further work should evaluate the role of the scribe in countries with health systems similar to Australia's.Trial registrationACTRN12615000607572 (pilot site); ACTRN12616000618459.

Project description:BackgroundThere has been comparatively little patient information about bronchiectasis, a chronic lung disease with rising prevalence. Patients want more information, which could improve their understanding and self-management. A novel information resource meeting identified needs has been co-developed in prior work. We sought to establish the feasibility of conducting a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to determine effect of the information resource on understanding, self-management and health outcomes.Methods/designWe conducted an unblinded, single-centre, randomised controlled feasibility trial with two parallel groups (1:1 ratio), comparing a novel patient information resource with usual care in adults with bronchiectasis. Integrated qualitative methods allowed further evaluation of the intervention and trial process. The setting was two teaching hospitals in North East England. Participants randomised to the intervention group received the information resource (website and booklet) and instructions on its use. Feasibility outcome measures included willingness to enter the trial, in addition to recruitment and retention rates. Secondary outcome measures (resource use and satisfaction, quality of life, unscheduled healthcare presentations, exacerbation frequency, bronchiectasis knowledge and lung function) were recorded at baseline, 2 weeks and 12 weeks.ResultsSixty-two participants were randomised (control group = 30; intervention group = 32). Thirty-eight (61%) were female, and the participants' median age was 65 years (range 15-81). Median forced expiratory volume in 1 s percent predicted was 68% (range 10-120). Sixty-two of 124 (50%; 95% CI, 41-59%) of potentially eligible participants approached were recruited. Sixty (97%) of 62 participants completed the study (control group, 29 of 30 [97%]; 95% CI, 83-99%; 1 unrelated death; intervention group, 31 [97%] of 32; 95% CI, 84-99%; 1 withdrawal). In the intervention group, 27 (84%) of 32 reported using the information provided, and 25 (93%) of 27 of users found it useful, particularly the video content. Qualitative data analysis revealed acceptability of the trial and intervention. Web analytics recorded over 20,000 page views during the 16-month study period.ConclusionThe successful recruitment process, high retention rate and study form completion rates indicate that it appears feasible to conduct a full trial based on this study design. Worldwide demand for online access to the information resource was high.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN84229105. Registered on 25 July 2014.

Dataset Information

Effect of patient completed agenda forms and doctors' education about the agenda on the outcome of consultations: randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Effect of patient completed agenda forms and doctors' education about the agenda on the outcome of consultations: randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets