Dataset Information

Developing a Taxonomy of Communication Techniques and Aids Used By Healthcare Providers During Patient Consultations: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Currently, there is no available standardized taxonomy of defined communication techniques and aids used by healthcare providers during patient consultations. It is challenging to identify communication techniques that contribute to effective healthcare provider and patient consultations and to replicate communication interventions in research. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this paper is to describe a protocol for the development and pilot of a taxonomy of communication techniques and aids used by healthcare providers during patient consultations. METHODS:A systematic review will be completed to identify eligible studies. Extracted techniques and aids will be organized into a preliminary taxonomy by a multidisciplinary team. The preliminary taxonomy will be piloted by two groups: research assistants trained in taxonomy application and healthcare providers and healthcare professional students not trained in taxonomy use. The pilot will use custom developed video footage of health provider and patient interactions. Interrater validity and interview feedback will be used to inform a Delphi panel of multidisciplinary healthcare providers and patient experts when they convene to finalize the preliminary taxonomy. RESULTS:This study was funded in November 2017 by the Monash University Interdisciplinary Research Seed Funding Scheme. Data collection commenced in March 2018, and data analysis is in progress. We expect the results to be published in 2021. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first known attempt to develop a defined and standardized taxonomy of communication techniques and aids used by healthcare providers in patient consultations. The findings will be used to inform future research by providing a detailed taxonomy of healthcare providers' communication techniques and standardized definitions. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):DERR1-10.2196/16801.

SUBMITTER: Shersher V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7388054 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Developing a Taxonomy of Communication Techniques and Aids Used By Healthcare Providers During Patient Consultations: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

Shersher Violetta V Haines Terry P TP Williams Cylie C Willoughby Louisa L Sturgiss Elizabeth E Weller Carolina C

JMIR research protocols 20200714 7

<h4>Background</h4>Currently, there is no available standardized taxonomy of defined communication techniques and aids used by healthcare providers during patient consultations. It is challenging to identify communication techniques that contribute to effective healthcare provider and patient consultations and to replicate communication interventions in research.<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of this paper is to describe a protocol for the development and pilot of a taxonomy of communication techniqu ...[more]

PMID: 32673277

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite evidence that decision and communication aids are effective for enhancing the quality of preference-sensitive decisions, their adoption in the field of orthopaedic surgery has been limited. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to evaluate the perceived value of decision and communication aids among different healthcare stakeholders.MethodsPatients with hip or knee arthritis, orthopaedic surgeons who perform hip and knee replacement procedures, and a group of large, self-insured employers (healthcare purchasers) were surveyed regarding their views on the value of decision and communication aids in orthopaedics. Patients with hip or knee arthritis who participated in a randomized controlled trial involving decision and communication aids were asked to complete an online survey about what was most and least beneficial about each of the tools they used, the ideal mode of administration of these tools and services, and their interest in receiving comparable materials and services in the future. A subset of these patients were invited to participate in a telephone interview, where there were asked to rank and attribute a monetary value to the interventions. These interviews were analyzed using a qualitative and mixed methods analysis software. Members of the American Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) were surveyed on their perceptions and usage of decision and communication aids in orthopaedic practice. Healthcare purchasers were interviewed about their perspectives on patient-oriented decision support.ResultsAll stakeholders saw value in decision and communication aids, with the major barrier to implementation being cost. Both patients and surgeons would be willing to bear at least part of the cost of implementing these tools, while employers felt health plans should be responsible for shouldering the costs.ConclusionsDecision and communication aids can be effective tools for incorporating patients preferences and values into preference-sensitive decisions in orthopaedics. Future efforts should be aimed at assessing strategies for efficient implementation of these tools into widespread orthopaedic practice.

Project description:BackgroundMuch of the research on decision-making in health care has focused on consultation outcomes. Less is known about the process by which clinicians and patients come to a treatment decision. This study aimed to quantitatively describe the behaviour shown by doctors and patients during primary care consultations when three types of decision aids were used to promote treatment decision-making in a randomised controlled trial.MethodsA video-based study set in an efficacy trial which compared the use of paper-based guidelines (control) with two forms of computer-based decision aids (implicit and explicit versions of DARTS II). Treatment decision concerned warfarin anti-coagulation to reduce the risk of stroke in older patients with atrial fibrillation. Twenty nine consultations were video-recorded. A ten-minute 'slice' of the consultation was sampled for detailed content analysis using existing interaction analysis protocols for verbal behaviour and ethological techniques for non-verbal behaviour.ResultsMedian consultation times (quartiles) differed significantly depending on the technology used. Paper-based guidelines took 21 (19-26) minutes to work through compared to 31 (16-41) minutes for the implicit tool; and 44 (39-55) minutes for the explicit tool. In the ten minutes immediately preceding the decision point, GPs dominated the conversation, accounting for 64% (58-66%) of all utterances and this trend was similar across all three arms of the trial. Information-giving was the most frequent activity for both GPs and patients, although GPs did this at twice the rate compared to patients and at higher rates in consultations involving computerised decision aids. GPs' language was highly technically focused and just 7% of their conversation was socio-emotional in content; this was half the socio-emotional content shown by patients (15%). However, frequent head nodding and a close mirroring in the direction of eye-gaze suggested that both parties were active participants in the conversationConclusionIrrespective of the arm of the trial, both patients' and GPs' behaviour showed that they were reciprocally engaged in these consultations. However, even in consultations aimed at promoting shared decision-making, GPs' were verbally dominant, and they worked primarily as information providers for patients. In addition, computer-based decision aids significantly prolonged the consultations, particularly the later phases. These data suggest that decision aids may not lead to more 'sharing' in treatment decision-making and that, in their current form, they may take too long to negotiate for use in routine primary care.

Project description:BackgroundPatient feedback after contact with a hospital is regarded as an important source of information for the improvement of local healthcare services. Routine patient surveys are in widespread use to obtain such feedback. While general principles for the composition of this kind of surveys have been described in the literature, it is unknown which method of contact and topics of feedback are important to patients in postcontact healthcare surveys.Material and methodsWe invited 2931 consecutive patients who had in- or outpatient contact with the Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology at the University Hospital Basel to an anonymous survey. They were asked whether they were generally in favor of feedback surveys. They also had the opportunity to state their preferred form of contact (text message, app, email, online or letter) and provide up to three topics that they regarded as specifically important in patient surveys.ResultsA total of 745 patients participated in the survey (25.4%), of these 61.9% expressed the preference to be surveyed, and 69.1% selected `letter' as one of the preferred forms of contact. Favoring only `letter' contact increased substantially with age. Overall 54.6% of patients stated at least one topic that they wished to give feedback on. The most frequent topics were related to treatment and rather general aspects regarding staff and overall impression. The wish to include suggestions for improvements was rarely mentioned as specific topic.ConclusionsThe majority of patients seem to be rather indifferent to the existence and content of patient surveys. They mention a wide range of topics from general to specific ones, but do not express interest in the opportunity to suggest changes. There is a need to effectively engage patients in healthcare planning using new approaches to obtain valuable feedback on patients' hospital stay and contact experiences. These new approaches should ideally be more informative and cost-effective than the current practice.

Dataset Information

Developing a Taxonomy of Communication Techniques and Aids Used By Healthcare Providers During Patient Consultations: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

Publications

Developing a Taxonomy of Communication Techniques and Aids Used By Healthcare Providers During Patient Consultations: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets