Dataset Information

Positive Health dialogue tool and value-based healthcare: a qualitative exploratory study during residents' outpatient consultations.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To explore how residents experienced the application of the Positive Health dialogue tool (PH-tool) during outpatient consultations and its influence on the delivery of value-based healthcare (VBHC).

Design

Qualitative study using non-participant observations of outpatient consultations during which residents used the PH-tool, followed by longitudinal individual, semistructured interviews. To analyse the data from observations and interviews, observational form notes' summarisation and categorisation, and an iterative-inductive thematic approach was used.

Participants

Eight residents-five from the ear, nose, and throat-department and three from the gastroenterology-hepatology-department-were selected through convenience sampling, accounting for 79 observations and 79 interviews.

Results

Residents had bivalent experiences with using the PH-tool. Residents discussed three main benefits: a gained insight into the individual patient's context and functioning, a changed dynamics in resident-patient communication, and an increased awareness regarding value in terms of patient-related outcomes and healthcare costs. Three barriers became apparent: doubts regarding the PH-tool's relevance and scope, boundaries of superspecialised medical professionals, and a lack of demarcation in clinical practice.

Conclusion

The PH-tool use can be beneficial for residents during outpatient consultations with new patients and follow-up in cases of multidimensional problems, particularly in cases of chronic conditions and generalist care. In these situations, the tool yielded valuable patient information beyond physical health, helped foster patient engagement, and enabled tailoring the treatment plan to individual patients' needs. On the other hand, the PH-tool was not a good fit for simple problems, clearly demarcated help requests, periodic follow-up consultations, or verbose patients. In addition, it was not suitable for superspecialised care, because it yielded an abundance of general information. For particular patients and problems, using the PH-tool seems a promising strategy to increase VBHC delivery. Nevertheless, further research and detailing is needed to better align the PH-tool's broad intent and clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Bock LA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8614141 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRenal transplant recipients have to see a nephrologist for regular follow-up for the rest of their lives. To reduce the burden for the patients, video consultation can be an alternative to traditional in-person hospital consultations. The aim of the current study was, from the perspectives of patients and health care providers, to investigate the perceived benefits and challenges of using video consultations in outpatient renal transplant recipient follow-up.MethodsPatients (i.e., renal transplant recipients; n = 18) alternated between regular in-person follow-up consultations and video consultations. Patients and health care providers were then invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis.ResultsPatients interviewed (n = 15) were median 53 years old (range 37-64) and 53% female. The video consultation solution used in the study turned out to have major technical deficiencies. Despite the technical challenges, however, the majority of the patients reported appreciating being able to alternate between video and in-person hospital consultations. Main benefits reported included not needing to travel to the hospital and thereby saving time, less focus on being chronically ill and potential economic benefits for patients and society. The health care providers (n = 3) also valued the benefits provided by the use of video consultations, but described the reoccurring technical challenges as disruptive. The fact that patients were in a stable phase of their health condition and already had an established, trusting relationship with their nephrologist, acted as facilitators for success. Possible challenges and harms described included concerns related to security, confidentiality and interruptions, as well as the potential need for physical examinations.ConclusionsBenefits from using video consultations as an alternative to in-person consultations may outweigh potential technological challenges for patients as well as health care providers. A long-lasting mutually trusting relationship between patient and provider may be an important prerequisite for the experienced benefits of using video consultation. Findings also indicate that starting such care delivery changes in a small-scale, with a few selected patients in a stable phase of their condition, may be an important factor for success.

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:Background Practitioners who enhance how they express empathy and create positive expectations of benefit could improve patient outcomes. However, the evidence in this area has not been recently synthesised. Objective To estimate the effects of empathy and expectations interventions for any clinical condition. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Data sources Six databases from inception to August 2017. Study selection Randomised trials of empathy or expectations interventions in any clinical setting with patients aged 12 years or older. Review methods Two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and graded quality of evidence using GRADE. Random effects model was used for meta-analysis. Results We identified 28 eligible (n = 6017). In seven trials, empathic consultations improved pain, anxiety and satisfaction by a small amount (standardised mean difference -0.18 [95% confidence interval -0.32 to -0.03]). Twenty-two trials tested the effects of positive expectations. Eighteen of these (n = 2014) reported psychological outcomes (mostly pain) and showed a modest benefit (standardised mean difference -0.43 [95% confidence interval -0.65 to -0.21]); 11 (n = 1790) reported physical outcomes (including bronchial function/ length of hospital stay) and showed a small benefit (standardised mean difference -0.18 [95% confidence interval -0.32 to -0.05]). Within 11 trials (n = 2706) assessing harms, there was no evidence of adverse effects (odds ratio 1.04; 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.63). The risk of bias was low. The main limitations were difficulties in blinding and high heterogeneity for some comparisons. Conclusions Greater practitioner empathy or communication of positive messages can have small patient benefits for a range of clinical conditions, especially pain. Protocol registration Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (protocol) DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011934.pub2.

Project description:BackgroundMultimorbidity, the coexistence of multiple chronic conditions in an individual, is a growing public health challenge. Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, physical distancing remains an indispensable measure to limit the spread of the virus. This pertains especially to those belonging to high-risk groups, namely older adults with multimorbidity. In-person visits are discouraged for this cohort; hence, there is a need for an alternative form of consultation such as video consultations to continue the provision of care.ObjectiveThe potential of video consultations has been explored in several studies. However, the emergence of COVID-19 presents us with an unprecedented opportunity to explore the use of this technological innovation in a time when physical distancing is imperative. This study will evaluate the sustainability of video consultations on a micro-, meso-, and macro-level by assessing the views of patients, physicians, and organizational and national policymakers, respectively.MethodsThe NASSS (nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability) framework was designed as a guide for the development of health care technologies. In this study, the implementation of and experiences related to video consultations will be studied using the NASSS framework. Individual in-depth interviews or focus group discussions will be conducted with participants using the Zoom platform. Data will be analyzed by at least two investigators trained in qualitative methodology, organized thematically, and coded in two phases-an initial phase and a focused selective phase. All disagreements will be resolved by consulting the larger research team until consensus is reached.ResultsThis study was approved for funding from the Geriatric Education and Research Institute. Ethics approval was obtained from the National Healthcare Group Domain Specific Review Board (reference #2020/00760). Study recruitment commenced in July 2020. The results of the data analysis are expected to be available by the end of the year.ConclusionsThis study aims to evaluate the adoption and sustainability of video consultations for older adults with multimorbidity during the pandemic as well as post COVID-19. The study will yield knowledge that will challenge the current paradigm on how care is being delivered for community-dwelling older adults with multimorbidity. Findings will be shared with administrators in the health care sector in order to enhance the safety and quality of these video consultations to improve patient care for this group of population.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/22679.

Project description:ObjectivesFamily health history underpins genetic medicine. Our study aimed to explore language and patterns of communication relating to family health history observed in interactions between general practitioners (GPs) and their patients within routine primary care consultations.DesignSecondary analysis of patient and GP routine consultation data (n=252).ParticipantsConsultations that included 'family health history' were eligible for inclusion (n=58).Primary outcomesA qualitative inductive analysis of the interactions from consultation transcripts.Results46/58 conversations about family health history were initiated by the GP. Most discussions around family history lasted for between approximately 1 to 2 min. Patients were invited to share family health history through one of two ways: non-specific enquiry (eg, by asking the patient about 'anything that runs in the family'); or specific enquiry where they were asked if they had a 'strong family history' in relation to a particular condition, for example, breast cancer. Patients often responded to either approach with a simple no, but fuller negative responses also occurred regularly and typically included an account of some kind (eg, explaining family relationships/dynamics which impeded or prevented the accessibility of information).ConclusionsFamily health history is regarded as a genetic test and is embedded in the sociocultural norms of the patient from whom information is being sought. Our findings highlight that it is more complex than asking simply if 'anything' runs in the family. As the collection of family health history is expected to be more routine, it will be important to also consider it from sociocultural perspectives in order to help mitigate any inequities in how family history is collected, and therefore used (or not) in a person's healthcare. Orientating an enquiry away from 'anything' and asking more specific details about particular conditions may help facilitate the dialogue.