Dataset Information

Implications of Electronic Consultations for Clinician Communication and Relationships: A Qualitative Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Strong relationships and effective communication between clinicians support care coordination and contribute to care quality. As a new mechanism of clinician communication, electronic consultations (e-consults) may have downstream effects on care provision and coordination.

Objective

The objective of this study was to understand primary care providers' and specialists' perspectives on how e-consults affect communication and relationships between clinicians.

Research design

Qualitative study using thematic analysis of semistructured interviews.

Subjects

Six of 8 sites in the VISN 1 (Veterans Integrated Service Network) in New England were chosen, based on variation in organization and received e-consult volume. Seventy-three respondents, including 60 clinicians in primary care and 3 high-volume specialties (cardiology, pulmonology, and neurology) and 13 clinical leaders at the site and VISN level, were recruited.

Measures

Participants' perspectives on the role and impact of e-consults on communication and relationships between clinicians.

Results

Clinicians identified 3 types of e-consults' social affordances: (1) e-consults were praised for allowing specialist advice to be more grounded in patient data and well-documented, but concerns about potential legal liability and increased transparency of communication to patients and others were also noted; (2) e-consults were perceived as an imperfect modality for iterative communication, especially for complex conversations requiring shared deliberation; (3) e-consults were understood as a factor influencing clinician relationships, but clinicians disagreed on whether e-consults promote or undermine relationship building.

Conclusions

Clinicians have diverse concerns about the implications of e-consults for communication and relationships. Our findings may inform efforts to expand and improve the use of e-consults in diverse health care settings.

SUBMITTER: Anderson E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8360667 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveCommunication failures between clinicians lead to poor patient outcomes. Critically injured patients have multiple injured organ systems and require complex multidisciplinary care from a wide range of healthcare professionals and communication failures are abundantly common. This study sought to determine barriers and facilitators to interdisciplinary communication between the consulting trauma, intensive care unit (ICU) team and specialty consultants for critically injured patients at an urban, safety-net, level 1 trauma centre.DesignAn observational qualitative study of barriers and facilitators to interdisciplinary communication.SettingWe conducted observations of daily rounds in two trauma surgical ICUs and recorded the most frequently consulted teams.ParticipantsKey informant interviews after presenting clinical vignettes as discussion prompts were conducted with a broad range of clinicians from the ICUs and physicians and nurse practitioners from the consultant teams who were identified during the observations. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data of these 10 interviews were combined with primary transcript data from prior study (25 interviews) and analysed together because of the same setting with same themes. Independent coding of the transcripts, with iterative reconciliation, was performed by two coders.Outcomes measuresFacilitators and barriers of interdisciplinary communication were identified.ResultsA total of 35 interview transcripts were analysed. Cardiology and interventional radiology were the most frequently consulted teams. Consulting and consultant clinicians reported that perceived accessibility from the team seeking a consultation and the consultant team impacted interdisciplinary communication. Accessibility had a physical dimension as well as a psychological dimension. Accessibility was demonstrated by responsiveness between clinicians of different disciplines and in turn facilitated interdisciplinary communication. Social norms, cognitive biases, hierarchy and relationships were reported as both facilitators and barriers to accessibility, and therefore, interdisciplinary communication.ConclusionAccessibility impacted interdisciplinary communication between the consulting and the consultant team.Article summaryElucidates barriers and facilitators to interdisciplinary communication between consulting and consultant teams.

Project description:ObjectiveExplore the experiences of patients and clinicians in rheumatology and cardiology outpatient clinics during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the impact of remote consultations on interpersonal dynamics.DesignQualitative study using semistructured interviews, conducted between February and June 2021.SettingThe rheumatology and cardiology departments of a general hospital in England, UK.ParticipantsAll clinicians and a convenience sample of 100 patients in each department who had taken part in a remote consultation in the past month were invited to take part. Twenty-five interviews were conducted (13 with patients, 12 with clinicians).ResultsThree themes were developed through the analysis: adapting to the dynamics of remote consultations, impact on the patient's experience and impact on the clinician's experience. The majority of remote consultations experienced by both patients and clinicians had been via telephone. Both clinicians and patients found remote consultations to be more business-like and focused, with the absence of pauses restricting time for reflection. For patients with stable, well-managed conditions, remote consultations were felt to be appropriate and could be more convenient than in-person consultations. However, the loss of visual cues meant some patients felt they could not give a holistic view of their condition and limited clinicians' ability to gather and convey information. Clinicians adjusted their approach by asking more questions, checking understanding more frequently and expressing empathy verbally, but felt patients still shared fewer concerns remotely than in person; a perception with which patients concurred.ConclusionsThese findings highlight the importance of ensuring, for each patient, that remote care is appropriate. Future research should focus on developing ways to support both clinicians and patients to gather and provide all information necessary during remote consultations, to enhance communication and trust.

Project description:BackgroundIn the incidental pulmonary nodule and breast cancer screening settings, high-quality patient-centered communication can improve adherence to evaluation and mitigate patient distress. Although guidelines emphasize shared decision-making before lung cancer screening, little is known about patient-clinician communication after lung cancer screening.Research questionHow do patients and clinicians perceive communication and results notification after lung cancer screening, and are there approaches that may mitigate or exacerbate distress?Study design and methodsWe conducted interviews and focus groups with 49 patients who underwent lung cancer screening in the prior year and 36 clinicians who communicate screening results (primary care providers, pulmonologists, nurses), recruited from lung cancer screening programs at 4 hospitals. We analyzed transcripts using conventional content analysis.ResultsClinicians and patients diverged in their impressions of the quality of communication after lung cancer screening. Clinicians recognized the potential for patient distress and tailored their approach to disclosure based on how clinically concerning they perceived results to be. Disclosure of normal or low-risk findings usually occurred by letter; clinicians believed this process was efficient and well received by patients. Yet many patients were dissatisfied: several could not recall receiving results at all, and others reported that receiving results by letter left them confused and concerned, with little opportunity to ask questions. By contrast, patients with larger nodules typically received results during an immediate phone call or clinic visit, and both patients and clinicians agreed that these conversations represented high-quality communication that met patient needs. Regardless of their cancer risk, patients who learned their results in a conversation appreciated the opportunity to discuss both the meaning of the nodule and the evaluation plan, and to have their concerns addressed, preempting distress.InterpretationTension exists between clinicians' interest in efficiency of results notification by letter in low-risk cases and patients' need to understand and be reassured about screening results, their implications, and the plan for subsequent screening or nodule evaluation-even when clinicians did not perceive results as concerning. Brief conversations to discuss lung cancer screening results may improve patient understanding and satisfaction while reducing distress.

Project description:Introduction: Uncertainty is omnipresent in cancer care, including the ambiguity of diagnostic tests, efficacy and side effects of treatments, and/or patients' long-term prognosis. During second opinion consultations, uncertainty may be particularly tangible: doubts and uncertainty may drive patients to seek more information and request a second opinion, whereas the second opinion in turn may also affect patients' level of uncertainty. Providers are tasked to clearly discuss all of these uncertainties with patients who may feel overwhelmed by it. The aim of this study was to explore how oncologists communicate about uncertainty during second opinion consultations in medical oncology. Methods: We performed a secondary qualitative analysis of audio-recorded consultations collected in a prospective study among cancer patients (N = 69) who sought a second opinion in medical oncology. We purposively selected 12 audio-recorded second opinion consultations. Any communication about uncertainty by the oncologist was double coded by two researchers and an inductive analytic approach was chosen to allow for novel insights to arise. Results: Seven approaches in which oncologists conveyed or addressed uncertainty were identified: (1) specifying the degree of uncertainty, (2) explaining reasons of uncertainty, (3) providing personalized estimates of uncertainty to patients, (4) downplaying or magnifying uncertainty, (5) reducing or counterbalancing uncertainty, and (6) providing support to facilitate patients in coping with uncertainty. Moreover, oncologists varied in their (7) choice of words/language to convey uncertainty (i.e., "I" vs. "we"; level of explicitness). Discussion: This study identified various approaches of how oncologists communicated uncertain issues during second opinion consultations. These different approaches could affect patients' perception of uncertainty, emotions provoked by it, and possibly even patients' behavior. For example, by minimizing uncertainty, oncologists may (un)consciously steer patients toward specific medical decisions). Future research is needed to examine how these different ways of communicating about uncertainty affect patients. This could also facilitate a discussion about the desirability of certain communication strategies. Eventually, practical and evidence-based guidance needs to be developed for clinicians to optimally inform patients about uncertain issues and support patients in dealing with these.

Project description:ObjectiveApproximately fifteen million women in the United States live > 50 miles from a gynecologic oncologist. Telemedical technology allows patients' local physicians to consult with subspecialist gynecologic oncologists without burdening patients with unnecessary in-person visits. Although critical to adoption of this technology, physicians' input into implementation of clinician-to-clinician consultation has not been sought. We therefore gathered feedback about experiences with referrals, communication, and openness to telemedical consultation from gynecologic oncologists, gynecologists, and medical oncologists.MethodsWe recruited gynecologic oncologists, gynecologists, and medical oncologists from practices serving rural patients to participate in semi-structured interviews. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Theoretical Domains Framework guided the interviews. Questions focused on factors influencing adoption and implementation of clinician-to-clinician telemedicine. Interviews were conducted via WebEx, recorded, and transcribed. Two investigators coded interviews using the combined frameworks and identified salient themes.ResultsWe conducted 11 interviews (6 gynecologic oncologists, 3 gynecologists, 2 medical oncologists) and identified themes encompassing communication burnout, barriers to sharing patient information, need for further logistical information, and potential benefits to patients.ConclusionsClinician-to-clinician telemedicine may improve access to gynecologic cancer care by decreasing barriers to subspecialty expertise while simultaneously benefiting referring and consultant clinicians through improved identification and workup of patients who may need in-person consultation. To optimize desired outcomes, telemedical consultation must allow for communication of relevant patient information and records and easy integration into clinical workflow. Importantly, clinicians must perceive the consultation as improving patients' access to specialty care.

Project description:ImportanceInpatient subspecialty consultations, a common and expensive practice within inpatient medicine, do not always go well; however, little is known about the failure modes of consultation, thus making it difficult to identify interventions to improve consultation quality.ObjectiveTo understand how stakeholders envision the ideal inpatient consultation and identify how and why consultations commonly fall short of this ideal.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study used in-depth, semistructured interviews collected from April to October 2017 and analyzed from January 2018 to February 2020 using conventional content analysis. The setting was a single academic medical center in Boston, Massachusetts. Participants were hospitalists and specialists who had requested or performed a consultation for a non-intensive care unit patient in the previous 4 months, patients who had received a consultation while hospitalized at the medical center in the previous 15 months, and family members of such patients.Main outcomes and measuresConsultation experiences reported by participants. Clinicians were asked about characteristics of the ideal consultation, positive and negative consultation experiences, costs and benefits, and suggested improvements. Patients and family members were asked about their consultation experience, changes in care, communication preferences, and suggested improvements.ResultsThe study included 38 participants: 17 specialists, 13 hospitalists, 4 patients, and 4 family members. More than half (21 of 38) of the participants were female. There were 11 key information exchanges identified that occur among the specialist team, primary team, and patient/family during an ideal consultation. These exchanges are time sensitive and primarily carried out through unwritten protocols. We also identified 6 defects (process failures) that commonly derail information exchanges (complete omission, exclusion of a key stakeholder, poor timing, incomplete or inaccurate information, and misinterpretation) and 5 contextual factors (roles and boundaries, professionalism, team hierarchy, availability, and operational know-how) that influence how information exchange unfolds, making some consultations more prone to defects.Conclusions and relevanceSuccessful inpatient consultation requires a complicated, sequenced series of time-sensitive information exchanges that are highly vulnerable to failure. Maximizing the benefit of consultations will likely entail not only minimizing low-value consultations but also actively preventing defects, such as information inaccuracies and misinterpretation, that commonly derail the consultation process.