Dataset Information

Development of observational rating scales for evaluating patient-centered communication within a whole health approach to care.

ABSTRACT:

Context

Teaching and evaluating patient-centered communication (PCC) skills that incorporate holistic approaches are increasingly relevant.

Objective

This study describes the development of the Observational Whole Health Measure (OWHM) for evaluating the extent to which primary care providers in the Veterans Health Administration engaged in PCC in the context of a holistic approach to care known as "Whole Health."

Design and setting

Observational rating scales were created based on content from a national whole health clinical education program in the VA and refined from audio recordings of patient-provider interactions in primary care clinical encounters. Unpaired t-tests and Cohen's d were conducted to measure overall quality of what really matters and whole health goal setting and plan development.

Participants

65 clinical encounters across 8 providers before and after participating in the training were included for analysis.

Intervention

The intervention used for creating rating scales is a 2.5 day whole health clinical education program designed to teach providers PCC skills to identify what matters most for the patients and develop a patient-centered health plan that incorporates integrative health approaches to care.

Main outcome measure

Quality scores (0-4) were used to measure number of instances and extent to which providers explored what matters most to patients, dimensions of whole health, and development of a whole health plan tailored to patient's goals.

Results

We developed the Observational Whole Health Measure (OWHM) that captures changes in provider communication. Significant differences in overall quality of whole health goal setting and plan development were detected between pre- and post-encounters, demonstrating a sensitivity to change. With the rise of integrative health approaches being adopted across clinical settings, the observational rating scales created in this study are likely to have increasing relevance.

SUBMITTER: Wolfe HL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7791595 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development of observational rating scales for evaluating patient-centered communication within a whole health approach to care.

Wolfe Hill L HL Fix Gemmae M GM Bolton Rendelle E RE Ruben Mollie A MA Bokhour Barbara G BG

Explore (New York, N.Y.) 20200705 6

<h4>Context</h4>Teaching and evaluating patient-centered communication (PCC) skills that incorporate holistic approaches are increasingly relevant.<h4>Objective</h4>This study describes the development of the Observational Whole Health Measure (OWHM) for evaluating the extent to which primary care providers in the Veterans Health Administration engaged in PCC in the context of a holistic approach to care known as "Whole Health."<h4>Design and setting</h4>Observational rating scales were created ...[more]

PMID: 32703684

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/AimsPatient-centered communication (PCC) is a critical element of patient-centered care, which the Institute of Medicine (2001) promulgates as essential to improving healthcare delivery. The National Cancer Institute?s Strategic Plan for Leading the Nation (2008) calls for assessing the delivery of PCC in cancer care. However, no comprehensive measure of PCC exists, and stakeholders have different conceptualizations and assumptions about how to measure it. The purpose of our study was to develop a set of self-administered patient survey items for comprehensive PCC assessment.MethodsOur approach was grounded in the PCC conceptual framework, as presented in the NCI monograph, Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care (2007), which defines six functions of PCC:First, we developed a comprehensive inventory of measurement domains and subdomains, aligned with the PCC functions, by reviewing relevant literature, consulting experts, and conducting a small qualitative study involving patient interviews. Next, we inventoried over 100 survey and other measurement instruments, identifying over 1,300 possible items. We evaluated items using a systematic question appraisal system, adapted existing measures as appropriate, and developed new questions to fill identified gaps. Finally, we tested more than 200 survey questions with cancer patients (n=46) using cognitive interviews.ResultsOverall, the findings from the cognitive interviews suggest that the survey questions function well. Patients were generally able to understand the questions and apply them to their own experiences. Many participants reported that the questions reflected important aspects of their interaction with providers.ConclusionsThe draft PCC survey items can now be used for population surveillance, quality assessment, and intervention research in the context of cancer care. Although the survey items focus on PCC with respect to cancer care, many are relevant to all patients as patient-centered care is a goal for health care generally. We discuss challenges of PCC assessment, including measuring communication experiences across different care settings, types of clinicians, and stages in the cancer care continuum. Measuring PCC longitudinally over the course of care and balancing parsimony and comprehensiveness are important considerations.

Project description:BackgroundNo patient-reported instrument assesses patient-specific information needs, treatment goals, and personal meaningful gain (PMG), a novel construct evaluating individualized, clinically relevant improvement. This study reports the development of the Patient-Specific Needs Evaluation (PSN) and examines its discriminative validity (ie, its ability to distinguish satisfied from dissatisfied patients) and test-retest reliability in patients with hand or wrist conditions.MethodsA mixed-methods approach was used to develop and validate the PSN, following Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments guidelines, including pilot testing, a survey (pilot, n = 223; final PSN, n = 275), cognitive debriefing ( n = 16), expert input, and validation. Discriminative validity was assessed by comparing the satisfaction level of patients who did and did not achieve their PMG ( n = 1985) and test-retest reliability using absolute agreement, the Cohen kappa, and intraclass correlation coefficients ( n = 102). The authors used a sample of 2860 patients to describe responses to the final PSN.ResultsThe PSN has only 5 questions (completion time, ±3 minutes) and is freely accessible online. The items and response options were considered understandable by 90% to 92% of the end-users and complete by 84% to 89%. The PSN had excellent discriminative validity (Cramer V, 0.48; P < 0.001) and moderate to high test-retest reliability (kappa, 0.46 to 0.68; intraclass correlation coefficients, 0.53 to 0.73).ConclusionsThe PSN is a freely available, patient-centered decision support tool that helps clinicians tailor their consultations to patients' individual needs and goals. It contains the PMG, a novel construct evaluating individualized, clinically relevant treatment outcomes. The PSN may function as a conversation starter, facilitate expectation management, and aid shared decision-making. The PSN is implementation-ready and can be readily adapted to other patient populations.

Project description:Clear communication with patients upon emergency department (ED) discharge is important for patient safety during the transition to outpatient care. Over one-third of patients are discharged from the ED with diagnostic uncertainty, yet there is no established approach for effective discharge communication in this scenario. From 2017 to 2019, the authors developed the Uncertainty Communication Checklist for use in simulation-based training and assessment of emergency physician communication skills when discharging patients with diagnostic uncertainty. This development process followed the established 12-step Checklist Development Checklist framework and integrated patient feedback into 6 of the 12 steps. Patient input was included as it has potential to improve patient-centeredness of checklists related to assessment of clinical performance. Focus group patient participants from 2 clinical sites were included: Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, and Northwestern University Hospital, Chicago, Illinois.The authors developed a preliminary instrument based on existing checklists, clinical experience, literature review, and input from an expert panel comprising health care professionals and patient advocates. They then refined the instrument based on feedback from 2 waves of patient focus groups, resulting in a final 21-item checklist. The checklist items assess if uncertainty was addressed in each step of the discharge communication, including the following major categories: introduction, test results/ED summary, no/uncertain diagnosis, next steps/follow-up, home care, reasons to return, and general communication skills. Patient input influenced both what items were included and the wording of items in the final checklist. This patient-centered, systematic approach to checklist development is built upon the rigor of the Checklist Development Checklist and provides an illustration of how to integrate patient feedback into the design of assessment tools when appropriate.

Project description:BackgroundPatient hand-offs at physician shift changes have limited ability to convey the primary team's longitudinal insight. The Patient Acuity Rating (PAR) is a previously validated, 7-point scale that quantifies physician judgment of patient stability, where a higher score indicates a greater risk of clinical deterioration. Its impact on cross-covering physician understanding of patients is not known.ObjectiveTo determine PAR contribution to sign-outs.DesignCross-sectional survey.SubjectsIntern physicians at a university teaching hospital.InterventionsSubjects were surveyed using randomly chosen, de-identified patient sign-outs, previously assigned PAR scores by their primary teams. For each sign-out, subjects assigned a PAR score, then responded to hypothetical cross-cover scenarios before and after being informed of the primary team's PAR.Main measureChanges in intern assessment of the scenario before and after being informed of the primary team's PAR were measured. In addition, responses between novice and experienced interns were compared.Key resultsBetween May and July 2008, 23 of 39 (59 %) experienced interns and 25 of 42 (60 %) novice interns responded to 480 patient scenarios from ten distinct sign-outs. The mean PAR score assigned by subjects was 4.2 ± 1.6 vs. 3.8 ± 1.8 by the primary teams (p < 0.001). After viewing the primary team's PAR score, interns changed their level of concern in 47.9 % of cases, their assessment of the importance of immediate bedside evaluation in 48.7 % of cases, and confidence in their assessment in 43.2 % of cases. For all three assessments, novice interns changed their responses more frequently than experienced interns (p = 0.03, 0.009, and <0.001, respectively). Overall interns reported the PAR score to be theoretically helpful in 70.8 % of the cases, but this was more pronounced in novice interns (81.2 % vs 59.6 %, p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe PAR adds valuable information to sign-outs that could impact cross-cover decision-making and potentially benefit patients. However, correct training in its use may be required to avoid unintended consequences.

Project description:The assessment of well-being remains an important topic for many disciplines including medical, psychological, social, educational, and economic fields. The present study assesses the reliability and validity of a five-item instrument for evaluating physical, psychological, spiritual, relational, and general well-being. This measure uniquely utilizes a segmented numeric version of the visual analog scale in which a respondent selects a whole number that best reflects the intensity of the investigated characteristic. In study one, 939 clinical (i.e., diagnosed with cancer and liver disease with cirrhosis) and non-clinical (i.e., undergraduate students and their family and acquaintances) participants between the ages of 18 to 87 years (M = 47.20 years, SD = 19.62, 54% males) were recruited. Results showed items have strong discriminant ability and the spread of threshold parameters attests to the appropriateness of the response categories. Moreover, convergent and discriminant validity were found with other self-report measures (e.g., depression, anxiety, optimism, well-being) and the measure showed responsiveness to two separate interventions for clinical populations. In study two, 287 Canadian (ages ranged from 18 to 30 years; M = 20.78, SD = 3.32; 23% males) and 342 Italian undergraduate psychology students (age ranged from 18 to 29 years, M = 21.21 years, SD = 1.73, 38% males) were recruited to complete self-report questionnaires. IRT-based differential item functioning analyses provided evidence that the item properties were similar for the Italian and English versions of the scale. Additionally, the validity results obtained in study one were replicated and similar relationships between criterion variables were found when comparing the Italian- and the English-speaking samples. Overall, the current study provides evidence that the Italian and English versions of the WB-NRSs offer added value in research focused on well-being and in assessing well-being changes prompted by intervention programs.

Dataset Information

Development of observational rating scales for evaluating patient-centered communication within a whole health approach to care.

Context

Objective

Design and setting

Participants

Intervention

Main outcome measure

Results

Publications

Development of observational rating scales for evaluating patient-centered communication within a whole health approach to care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets