Dataset Information

Methods for assessing patient-clinician communication about depression in primary care: what you see depends on how you look.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To advance research on depression communication and treatment by comparing assessments of communication about depression from patient report, clinician report, and chart review to assessments from transcripts.

Data

One hundred sixty-four primary care visits from seven health care systems (2010-2011).

Study design

Presence or absence of discussion about depressive symptoms, treatment recommendations, and follow-up was measured using patient and clinician postvisit questionnaires, chart review, and coding of audio transcripts. Sensitivity and specificity of indirect measures compared to transcripts were calculated.

Principal findings

Patient report was sensitive for mood (83 percent) and sleep (83 percent) but not suicide (55 percent). Patient report was specific for suicide (86 percent) but not for other symptoms (44-75 percent). Clinician report was sensitive for all symptoms (83-98 percent) and specific for sleep, memory, and suicide (80-87 percent), but not for other symptoms (45-48 percent). Chart review was not sensitive for symptoms (50-73 percent), but it was specific for sleep, memory, and suicide (88-96 percent). All indirect measures had low sensitivity for treatment recommendations (patient report: 24-42 percent, clinician report 38-50 percent, chart review 49-67 percent) but high specificity (89-96 percent). For definite follow-up plans, all three indirect measures were sensitive (82-96 percent) but not specific (40-57 percent).

Conclusions

Clinician report and chart review generally had the most favorable sensitivity and specificity for measuring discussion of depressive symptoms and treatment recommendations, respectively.

SUBMITTER: Henry SG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4177306 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesPatient-reported outcome measures invite patients to self-report aspects of their quality of life and have been reported to enhance communication with clinicians. We aimed to examine how routine use of patient-reported outcome measures in in-center hemodialysis units influenced patient-clinician communication.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsA concurrent, longitudinal, mixed-methods approach was used. We used data from a cluster randomized controlled trial of 17 hemodialysis units in northern Alberta that introduced a patient-reported outcome measures intervention. Patient-clinician communication was assessed using a modified Communication Assessment Tool. Using interpretive description, we explored patients' and nurses' perceptions of communication pertaining to routine patient-reported outcome measure use. Through purposeful sampling, we interviewed ten patients and eight nurses and conducted six observations in the dialysis units, which were documented in field notes. We reviewed 779 patient responses to open-ended survey questions from randomized controlled trial data. Qualitative data were thematically analyzed.ResultsOverall, patient-reported outcome measure use did not substantively improve patient-clinician communication. There was a small positive change in mean total Communication Assessment Tool scores (range, 1-5) from baseline to 12 months in patient-reported outcome measure use units (0.25) but little difference from control group units that did not use patient-reported outcome measures (0.21). The qualitative findings provide in-depth insights into why patient-reported outcome measure use did not improve patient-clinician communication. The purpose of patient-reported outcome measure use was not always understood by patients and clinicians; patient-reported outcome measures were not implemented as originally intended in the trial, despite clinician training; there were challenges using patient-reported outcome measures as a means to communicate; and patient-reported outcome measure use was perceived to have limited value.ConclusionsWhile patient-reported outcome measures use did not improve patient-clinician communication, qualitative data suggest implementation challenges, including limited clarity of purpose and perceived limited value, that may have limited the effectiveness of the intervention.

Project description:BackgroundWith the increasing adoption of electronic health record (EHR) systems, documentation-related burdens have been increasing for health care providers. Recent estimates indicate that primary care providers spend about one-half of their workdays interacting with the EHR, of which about half is focused on clerical tasks. To reduce documentation burdens associated with the EHR, health care systems and physician practices are increasingly implementing medical scribes to assist providers with real-time documentation. Scribes are typically unlicensed paraprofessionals who assist health care providers by documenting notes electronically under the direction of a licensed practitioner or physician in real time. Despite the promise of scribes, few studies have investigated their effect on clinical encounters, particularly with regard to patient-provider communication.ObjectiveThe purpose of this quasi-experimental pilot study was to understand how scribes affect patient-physician communication in primary care clinical encounters.MethodsWe employed a convergent mixed methods design and included a sample of three physician-scribe pairs and 34 patients. Patients' clinical encounters were randomly assigned to a scribe or nonscribe group. We conducted patient surveys focused on perceptions of patient-provider communication and satisfaction with encounters, video recorded clinical encounters, and conducted physician interviews about their experiences with scribes.ResultsOverall, the survey results revealed that patients across both arms reported very high satisfaction of communication with their physician, their physician's use of the EHR, and their care, with very little variability. Video recording analysis supported patient survey data by demonstrating high measures of communication among physicians in both scribed and nonscribed encounters. Furthermore, video recordings revealed that the presence of scribes had very little effect on the clinical encounter.ConclusionsFrom the patient's perspective, scribes are an acceptable addition to clinical encounters. Although they do not have much impact on patients' perceptions of satisfaction and their impact on the clinical encounter itself was minimal, their potential to reduce documentation-related burden on physicians is valuable. Physicians noted important issues related to scribes, including important considerations for implementing scribe programs, the role of scribes in patient interactions, how physicians work with scribes, characteristics of good scribes, and the role of scribes in physician workflow.

Project description:BackgroundPatient awareness, clinician detection, and management of chronic kidney disease remain suboptimal, despite clinical practice guidelines and diverse education programs.ObjectiveThis protocol describes a study to develop and investigate the impact of the National Kidney Foundation Kidney Score Platform on chronic kidney disease awareness, communication, and management, by leveraging the Behavior Change Wheel, an implementation science framework that helps identify behavioral intervention targets and functions that address barriers to behavior change.MethodsWe interviewed 20 patients with chronic kidney disease and 11 clinicians to identify patient and clinician behaviors suitable for intervention and barriers to behavior change (eg, limited awareness of chronic kidney disease clinical practice guidelines within primary care settings, limited data analytics to highlight chronic kidney disease care gaps, asymptomatic nature of chronic kidney disease in conjunction with patient reliance on primary care clinicians to determine risk and order kidney testing). Leveraging the Behavior Change Wheel, the Kidney Score Platform was developed with a patient-facing online Risk Calculator and a clinician-facing Clinical Practice Toolkit. The Risk Calculator utilizes risk predictive analytics to provide interactive health information tailored to an individual's chronic kidney disease risk and health status. The Clinical Practice Toolkit assists clinicians in discussing chronic kidney disease with individuals at risk for and with kidney disease and in managing their patient population with chronic kidney disease. The Kidney Score Platform will be tested in 2 Veterans Affairs primary health care settings using a pre-post study design. Outcomes will include changes in patient self-efficacy for chronic kidney disease management (primary outcome), quality of communication with clinicians about chronic kidney disease, and practitioners' knowledge of chronic kidney disease guidelines. Process outcomes will identify usability and adoption of different elements of the Kidney Score Platform using qualitative and quantitative methods.ResultsAs of September 2020, usability studies are underway with veterans and clinicians to refine the patient-facing components of the Kidney Score Platform before study initiation. Results and subsequent changes to the Kidney Score Platform will be published at a later date. The study is expected to be completed by December 2021.ConclusionsResults of this study will be used to inform integration of the Kidney Score Platform within primary care settings so that it can serve as a central component of the National Kidney Foundation public awareness campaign to educate, engage, and empower individuals at risk for and living with chronic kidney disease.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/22024.

Project description:BackgroundIn this paper, we report the findings of a realist synthesis that aimed to understand how and in what circumstances patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support patient-clinician communication and subsequent care processes and outcomes in clinical care. We tested two overarching programme theories: (1) PROMs completion prompts a process of self-reflection and supports patients to raise issues with clinicians and (2) PROMs scores raise clinicians' awareness of patients' problems and prompts discussion and action. We examined how the structure of the PROM and care context shaped the ways in which PROMs support clinician-patient communication and subsequent care processes.ResultsPROMs completion prompts patients to reflect on their health and gives them permission to raise issues with clinicians. However, clinicians found standardised PROMs completion during patient assessments sometimes constrained rather than supported communication. In response, clinicians adapted their use of PROMs to render them compatible with the ongoing management of patient relationships. Individualised PROMs supported dialogue by enabling the patient to tell their story. In oncology, PROMs completion outside of the consultation enabled clinicians to identify problematic symptoms when the PROM acted as a substitute rather than addition to the clinical encounter and when the PROM focused on symptoms and side effects, rather than health related quality of life (HRQoL). Patients did not always feel it was appropriate to discuss emotional, functional or HRQoL issues with doctors and doctors did not perceive this was within their remit.ConclusionsThis paper makes two important contributions to the literature. First, our findings show that PROMs completion is not a neutral act of information retrieval but can change how patients think about their condition. Second, our findings reveal that the ways in which clinicians use PROMs is shaped by their relationships with patients and professional roles and boundaries. Future research should examine how PROMs completion and feedback shapes and is influenced by the process of building relationships with patients, rather than just their impact on information exchange and decision making.

Project description:ImportanceBlack patients with serious illness experience higher-intensity care at the end of life. Little research has used critical, race-conscious approaches to examine factors associated with these outcomes.ObjectiveTo investigate the lived experiences of Black patients with serious illness and how various factors may be associated with patient-clinician communication and medical decision-making.Design, setting, and participantsIn this qualitative study, one-on-one, semistructured interviews were conducted with 25 Black patients with serious illness hospitalized at an urban academic medical center in Washington State between January 2021 and February 2023. Patients were asked to discuss experiences with racism, how those experiences affected the way they communicated with clinicians, and how racism impacted medical decision-making. Public Health Critical Race Praxis was used as framework and process.Main outcomes and measuresThe experience and of racism and its association, as described by Black patients who had serious illness, with patient-clinician communication and medical decision-making within a racialized health care setting.ResultsA total of 25 Black patients (mean [SD] age, 62.0 [10.3] years; 20 males [80.0%]) with serious illness were interviewed. Participants had substantial socioeconomic disadvantage, with low levels of wealth (10 patients with 0 assets [40.0%]), income (annual income <$25 000 among 19 of 24 patients with income data [79.2%]), educational attainment (mean [SD] 13.4 [2.7] years of schooling), and health literacy (mean [SD] score in the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine-Short Form, 5.8 [2.0]). Participants reported high levels of medical mistrust and high frequency of discrimination and microaggressions experienced in health care settings. Participants reported epistemic injustice as the most common manifestation of racism: silencing of their own knowledge and lived experiences about their bodies and illness by health care workers. Participants reported that these experiences made them feel isolated and devalued, especially if they had intersecting, marginalized identities, such as being underinsured or unhoused. These experiences were associated with exacerbation of existing medical mistrust and poor patient-clinician communication. Participants described various mechanisms of self-advocacy and medical decision-making based on prior experiences with mistreatment from health care workers and medical trauma.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that Black patients' experiences with racism, specifically epistemic injustice, were associated with their perspectives on medical care and decision-making during serious illness and end of life. These findings suggest that race-conscious, intersectional approaches may be needed to improve patient-clinician communication and support Black patients with serious illness to alleviate the distress and trauma of racism as these patients near the end of life.