Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of audit-feedback versus additional physician communication training to improve cancer screening for patients with limited health literacy.

ABSTRACT: We designed a continuing medical education (CME) program to teach primary care physicians (PCP) how to engage in cancer risk communication and shared decision making with patients who have limited health literacy (HL).We evaluated whether training PCPs, in addition to audit-feedback, improves their communication behaviors and increases cancer screening among patients with limited HL to a greater extent than only providing clinical performance feedback.Four-year cluster randomized controlled trial.Eighteen PCPs and 168 patients with limited HL who were overdue for colorectal/breast/cervical cancer screening.Communication intervention PCPs received skills training that included standardized patient (SP) feedback on counseling behaviors. All PCPs underwent chart audits of patients' screening status semiannually up to 24 months and received two annual performance feedback reports.PCPs experienced three unannounced SP encounters during which SPs rated PCP communication behaviors. We examined between-group differences in changes in SP ratings and patient knowledge of cancer screening guidelines over 12 months; and changes in patient cancer screening rates over 24 months.There were no group differences in SP ratings of physician communication at baseline. At follow-up, communication intervention PCPs were rated higher in general communication about cancer risks and shared decision making related to colorectal cancer screening compared to PCPs who only received performance feedback. Screening rates increased among patients of PCPs in both groups; however, there were no between-group differences in screening rates except for mammography. The communication intervention did not improve patient cancer screening knowledge.Compared to audit and feedback alone, including PCP communication training increases PCP patient-centered counseling behaviors, but not cancer screening among patients with limited HL. Larger studies must be conducted to determine whether lack of changes in cancer screening were due to clinic/patient sample size versus ineffectiveness of communication training to change outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Price-Haywood EG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4099465 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of audit-feedback versus additional physician communication training to improve cancer screening for patients with limited health literacy.

Price-Haywood Eboni G EG Harden-Barrios Jewel J Cooper Lisa A LA

Journal of general internal medicine 20140204 8

<h4>Background</h4>We designed a continuing medical education (CME) program to teach primary care physicians (PCP) how to engage in cancer risk communication and shared decision making with patients who have limited health literacy (HL).<h4>Objective</h4>We evaluated whether training PCPs, in addition to audit-feedback, improves their communication behaviors and increases cancer screening among patients with limited HL to a greater extent than only providing clinical performance feedback.<h4>Des ...[more]

PMID: 24590734

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe non-curative setting makes communication and shared decision-making in palliative care extremely demanding. This is even more so for patients with limited health literacy. So far, research in palliative care focusing on shared decision-making with patients with limited health literacy is lacking. Recent research from our team indicates that the assessment of these patients' understanding of their situation and the implementation of shared decision-making in palliative care, needs improvement.MethodsTo improve communication and decision-making, especially with patients with limited health literacy, we developed and evaluated a blended training programme for healthcare providers. The training programme comprised of an e-learning and a team training. The evaluation was performed by 1. conducting interviews (n = 15) focused on evaluating the whole programme and, 2. coding video-recorded outpatient consultations on the extent to which providers involved patients in decision-making before (n = 19) and after (n = 20) the intervention, using the 5-item OPTION coding instrument.ResultsThe interviews showed that healthcare providers valued the skills they had learned during the e-learning and team training. Providers specifically valued the teach-back technique, learned to use simpler wording and felt better able to recognize patients with limited health literacy. Many providers reported a change in communication behaviour as a consequence of the training programme. Suggestions for improvement for both e-learning and training were, amongst others, a follow-up team training course and a new scenarios for the e-learning about discussing palliative care. For both the pre- and the post-measurement, involving patients in decision-making lies between a minimal and a moderate effort; differences were not significant.ConclusionsThe e-learning and team training were valued positively by the healthcare providers. Adaptations to the e-learning have been made after evaluation. The e-learning has been implemented in several hospitals and medical education. To improve shared decision-making in practice a more sustained effort is needed.

Project description:BackgroundFeedback tools for clinical audit data that compare site-specific results to average performance over all sites can be useful for quality improvement. Proposed tools should be simple and clearly benchmark the site's performance, so that a relevant action plan can be directly implemented to improve patient care services. We aimed to develop such a tool in order to feedback data to UK HIV clinics participating in the 2015 British HIV Association (BHIVA) audit assessing compliance with the 2011 guidelines for routine investigation and monitoring of adult HIV-1- infected individuals.MethodsHIV clinic sites were asked to provide data on a random sample of 50-100 adult patients attending for HIV care during 2014 and/or 2015 by completing a self-audit spreadsheet. Outcomes audited included the proportion of patients with recorded resistance testing, viral load monitoring, adherence assessment, medications, hepatitis testing, vaccination management, risk assessments, and sexual health screening. For each outcome we benchmarked the proportion for a specific site against the average performance. We produced performance charts for each site using boxplots for the outcomes. We also used the mean and differences from the mean performance to produce a dashboard for each site. We used principal components analysis to group correlated outcomes and simplify the dashboard.ResultsThe 106 sites included in the study provided information on a total of 7768 patients. Outcomes capturing monitoring of treatment of HIV-infection showed high performance across the sites, whereas testing for hepatitis, and risk assessment for cardiovascular disease and smoking, management of flu vaccination, sexual health screening, and cervical cytology for women were very variable across sites. The principal components analysis reduced the original 12 outcomes to four factors that represented HIV care, hepatitis testing, other screening tests, and resistance testing. These provided simplified measures of adherence to guidelines which were presented as a 4 bar dashboard of performance.ConclusionOur dashboard performance charts provide easily digestible visual summaries of locally relevant audit data that are benchmarked against the overall mean and can be used to improve feedback to HIV services. Feedback from clinicians indicated that they found these charts acceptable and useful.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In order to play an active role in their health care, patients need information and motivation. Current delivery systems limit patients' involvement because they do not routinely provide them with enough details of their own clinical results, conditions and other important clinical data. The purpose of this study was to identify, from the perspective of patients, which topics matter the most, who should be communicating them, and when and how should they be provided. METHODS:We conducted a qualitative, phenomenological study analysing the content of subjective experiences, feelings and behaviours. We organized two focus groups with 13 participants and 15 in-depth interviews. Transcripts of the focus groups and interviews were checked for accuracy and then entered into Atlas ti™ v7.5.13 qualitative software. Two independent researchers performed a qualitative inductive content analysis to classify the data in two levels: themes and categories. RESULTS:The qualitative analysis provided 377 units of meaning synthesized into 22 categories and six themes: hospitalization procedure, Health Literacy relating to the patient's condition, information content, satisfaction, professional-patient relationship, and patient proactivity. Patients described which information they wished for, when they needed it, and who would provide it, usually related to actions such as admission, discharge or diagnostic tests. Oral information was more difficult to comprehend than the written kind, as patients can check written information several times if needed. Nurses were the most available professionals, and patients found easier to relate to them and ask them questions. Moreover, patients identified physicians as those professionals responsible for providing clinical information. CONCLUSIONS:Our results showed that patients suffered from poor Health Literacy regarding their personal condition, as they were unable to describe the symptoms, the type of tests being performed or their results, and some of them also had difficulties in naming the specific disease or comorbidities they had. During the hospitalization process, patients were in good shape to come with doubts and actively asked for more information. Healthcare organizations and professionals were offered the chance to ensure the correct communication and comprehension to their patients.

Project description:ImportanceResidents must prepare for effective communication with patients after medical errors. The video-based communication assessment (VCA) is software that plays video of a patient scenario, asks the physician to record what they would say, engages crowdsourced laypeople to rate audio recordings of physician responses, and presents feedback to physicians.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of VCA feedback in resident error disclosure skill training.Design, setting, and participantsThis single-blinded, randomized clinical trial was conducted from July 2022 to May 2023 at 7 US internal medicine and family medicine residencies (10 total sites). Participants were second-year residents attending required teaching conferences. Data analysis was performed from July to December 2023.InterventionResidents completed 2 VCA cases at time 1 and were randomized to the intervention, an individual feedback report provided in the VCA application after 2 weeks, or to control, in which feedback was not provided until after time 2. Residents completed 2 additional VCA cases after 4 weeks (time 2).Main outcomes and measuresPanels of crowdsourced laypeople rated recordings of residents disclosing simulated medical errors to create scores on a 5-point scale. Reports included learning points derived from layperson comments. Mean time 2 ratings were compared to test the hypothesis that residents who had access to feedback on their time 1 performance would score higher at time 2 than those without feedback access. Residents were surveyed about demographic characteristics, disclosure experience, and feedback use. The intervention's effect was examined using analysis of covariance.ResultsA total of 146 residents (87 [60.0%] aged 25-29 years; 60 female [41.0%]) completed the time 1 VCA, and 103 (70.5%) completed the time 2 VCA (53 randomized to intervention and 50 randomized to control); of those, 28 (54.9%) reported reviewing their feedback. Analysis of covariance found a significant main effect of feedback between intervention and control groups at time 2 (mean [SD] score, 3.26 [0.45] vs 3.14 [0.39]; difference, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.08-0.48; P = .01). In post hoc comparisons restricted to residents without prior disclosure experience, intervention residents scored higher than those in the control group at time 2 (mean [SD] score, 3.33 [0.43] vs 3.09 [0.44]; difference, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.01-0.48; P = .007). Worse performance at time 1 was associated with increased likelihood of dropping out before time 2 (odds ratio, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.06-7.84; P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, self-directed review of crowdsourced feedback was associated with higher ratings of internal medicine and family medicine residents' error disclosure skill, particularly for those without real-life error disclosure experience, suggesting that such feedback may be an effective way for residency programs to address their requirement to prepare trainees for communicating with patients after medical harm.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06234085.

Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of audit-feedback versus additional physician communication training to improve cancer screening for patients with limited health literacy.

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of audit-feedback versus additional physician communication training to improve cancer screening for patients with limited health literacy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets