Dataset Information

Communicative characteristics of general practitioner-led and nurse-led telephone triage at two Danish out-of-hours services: an observational study of 200 recorded calls.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Out-of-hours (OOH) telephone triage is used to manage patient flow, but knowledge of the communicative skills of telephone triagists is limited. The aims of this study were to compare communicative parameters in general practitioner (GP)-led and nurse-led OOH telephone triage and to discuss differences in relation to patient-centred communication and safety issues.

Design

Observational study.

Setting

Two Danish OOH settings: a large-scale general practitioner cooperative in the Central Denmark Region (n=100 GP-led triage conversations) and Medical Helpline 1813 in the Capital Region of Denmark (n=100 nurse-led triage conversations with use of a clinical decision support system).

Participants

200 audio-recorded telephone triage conversations randomly selected.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Conversations were compared with regard to length of call, distribution of speaking time, question types, callers' expression of negative affect, and nurses' and GPs' responses to callers' negative affectivity using the Mann-Whitney U test and the Student's t-test.

Results

Compared with GPs, nurses had longer telephone contacts (137s vs 264 s, p=0.001) and asked significantly more questions (5 vs 9 questions, p=0.001). In 36% of nurse-led triage conversations, triage nurses either transferred the call to a physician or had to confer the call with a physician. Nurses gave the callers significantly more spontaneous talking time than GPs (23.4s vs 17.9 s, p=0.01). Compared with nurses, GPs seemed more likely to give an emphatic response when a caller spontaneously expressed concern; however, this difference was not statistically significant (36% vs 29%, p=0.6).

Conclusions

When comparing communicative parameters in GP-led and nurse-led triage, several differences were observed. However, the impact of these differences in the perspective of patient-centred communication and safety needs further research. More knowledge is needed to determine what characterises good quality in telephone triage communication.

SUBMITTER: Vilstrup E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6596995 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:To explore and compare safety, efficiency, and health-related quality of telephone triage in out-of-hours primary care (OOH-PC) services performed by general practitioners (GPs), nurses using a computerised decision support system (CDSS), or physicians with different medical specialities. METHODS:Natural quasi-experimental cross-sectional study conducted in November and December 2016. We randomly selected 1294 audio-recorded telephone triage calls from two Danish OOH-PC services triaged by GPs (n?=?423), nurses using CDSS (n?=?430), or physicians with different medical specialities (n?=?441). An assessment panel of 24 physicians used a validated assessment tool (Assessment of Quality in Telephone Triage - AQTT) to assess all telephone triage calls and measured health-related quality, safety, and efficiency of triage. RESULTS:The relative risk (RR) of poor quality was significantly lower for nurses compared to GPs in four out of ten items regarding identifying and uncovering of problems. For most items, the quality tended to be lowest for physicians with different medical specialities. Compared to calls triaged by GPs (reference), the risk of clinically relevant undertriage was significantly lower for nurses, while physicians with different medical specialties had a similar risk (GP: 7.3%, nurse: 3.7%, physician: 6.1%). The risk of clinically relevant overtriage was significantly higher for nurses (9.1%) and physicians with different medical specialities (8.2%) compared to GPs (4.3%). GPs had significantly shorter calls (mean: 2?min 57?s, SD: 105?s) than nurses (mean: 4?min 44?s, SD: 168?s). CONCLUSIONS:Our explorative study indicated that nurses using CDSS performed better than GPs in telephone triage on a large number of health-related items, had a lower level of clinically relevant undertriage, but were perceived less efficient. Calls triaged by physicians with different medical specialities were perceived less safe and less efficient compared to GPs. Differences in the organisation of telephone triage may influence the distribution of workload in primary and secondary OOH services. Future research could compare the long-term outcomes following a telephone call to OOH-PC related to safety and efficiency.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare doctors' and nurses' communication with patients in primary care telephone triage consultations.DesignQualitative comparative study of content and form of questions in 51 telephone triage encounters between practitioners (general practitioners (GPs)=29; nurses=22) and patients requesting a same-day appointment in primary care. Audio-recordings of nurse-led calls were synchronised with video recordings of nurse's use of computer decision support software (CDSS) during triage.Setting2 GP practices in Devon and Warwickshire, UK.Participants4 GPs and 29 patients; and 4 nurses and 22 patients requesting a same-day face-to-face appointment with a GP.Main outcome measureForm and content of practitioner-initiated questions and patient responses during clinical assessment.ResultsA total of 484 question-response sequences were coded (160 GP; 324 N). Despite average call lengths being similar (GP=4 min, 37 s, (SD=1 min, 26 s); N=4 min, 39 s, (SD=2 min, 22 s)), GPs and nurses differed in the average number (GP=5.51, (SD=4.66); N=14.72, (SD=6.42)), content and form of questions asked. A higher frequency of questioning in nurse-led triage was found to be due to nurses' use of CDSS to guide telephone triage. 89% of nurse questions were oriented to asking patients about their reported symptoms or to wider-information gathering, compared to 54% of GP questions. 43% of GP questions involved eliciting patient concerns or expectations, and obtaining details of medical history, compared to 11% of nurse questions. Nurses using CDSS frequently delivered questions designed as declarative statements requesting confirmation and which typically preferred a 'no problem' response. In contrast, GPs asked a higher proportion of interrogative questions designed to request information.ConclusionsNurses and GPs emphasise different aspects of the clinical assessment process during telephone triage. These different styles of triage have implications for the type of information available following nurse-led or doctor-led triage, and for how patients experience triage.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To compare the quality of communication in out-of-hours (OOH) telephone triage conducted by general practitioners (GPs), nurses using a computerised decision support system and physicians with different medical specialities, and to explore the association between communication quality and efficiency, length of call and the accuracy of telephone triage. DESIGN:Natural quasi-experimental cross-sectional study. SETTING:Two Danish OOH services using different telephone triage models: a GP cooperative and the medical helpline 1813. PARTICIPANTS:1294 audio-recorded randomly selected OOH telephone triage calls from 2016 conducted by GPs (n=423), nurses using CDSS (n=430) and physicians with different medical specialities (n=441). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Twenty-four physicians assessed the calls. The panel used a validated assessment tool (Assessment of Quality in Telephone Triage, AQTT) to measure nine aspects of communication, overall perceived communication quality, efficiency and length of call. RESULTS:The risk of poor quality was significantly higher in calls triaged by GPs compared with calls triaged by nurses regarding 'allowing the caller to describe the situation' (GP: 13.5% nurse: 9.8%), 'mastering questioning techniques' (GP: 27.4% nurse: 21.1%), 'summarising' (GP: 33.0% nurse: 21.0%) and 'paying attention to caller's experience' (GP: 25.7% nurse: 17.0%). The risk of poor quality was significantly higher in calls triaged by physicians compared with calls triaged by GPs in five out of nine items. GP calls were significantly shorter (2?min 57?s) than nurse calls (4?min 44?s) and physician calls (4?min 1?s). Undertriaged calls were rated lower than optimally triaged calls for overall quality of communication (p<0.001) and all specific items. CONCLUSIONS:Compared with telephone triage by GPs, the communication quality was higher in calls triaged by nurses and lower in calls triaged by physicians with different medical specialities. However, calls triaged by nurses and physicians were longer and perceived less efficient. Quality of communication was associated with accurate triage.

Project description:Several care transition interventions propose that post-discharge phone calls can reduce adverse events and decrease costly return visits to the hospital. However, given the multi-faceted nature of most care transitions interventions, the true relationship between post-discharge phone calls and readmissions in a real world setting is uncertain.To determine the effect of receiving a post-discharge telephone call on all-cause 30-day readmission in a general medicine population.Retrospective observational study.Patients discharged home from the Medicine Service at a tertiary care academic medical center between November 2010 and May 2012.Patients received two telephone call attempts by a nurse within 72 h of discharge. Nurses followed a standard script to address issues associated with readmission.Billing data captured readmissions. We used logistic regression-adjusted patient and clinical covariates as well as a propensity score representing likelihood of being called to determine the association between call receipt and risk for readmission.There were 5,507 eligible patients. In unadjusted analyses, patients who received a call and completed the intervention were significantly less likely to be readmitted compared to those who did not [155 (5.8 %) vs 123 (8.6 %), p?<?0.01]. In multivariable models adjusting for socio-demographic and clinical covariates alone, completing a post-discharge telephone call intervention was associated with lower odds for readmission (AOR 0.71; 95 % CI: 0.55-0.91). However, when models adjusted for the likelihood of receiving the phone call using the propensity score, no association between call receipt and readmission was observed (AOR 0.91; 95%CI: 0.69-1.20).Effectiveness of post-discharge phone call programs may be more related to whether patients are able to answer a phone call than to the care delivered by the phone call. Programs would benefit from improving their ability to perform phone outreach while simultaneously improving on the care delivered during the calls.