Development of communication tool for resident- and family-led care discussions in long-term care through patient and family engagement.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Effective communication between residents (older adults), families, and the healthcare team supports person-centred care. However, communication breakdowns can occur that can impact care and outcomes. The aim of this paper is to describe a feedback approach to developing a communication tool for residents and families to guide information sharing during care discussions with the healthcare team in long-term care.Methods
Development of the communication tool included consultation with key stakeholders for their feedback and input. Following initial development of the tool template by our research team, we invited feedback from our study collaborators. Next, individual interviews and a focus group were conducted with family members, followed by individual interviews with selected residents from two long-term care homes in Ontario, Canada. Participants were asked to provide input and feedback on the tool's content and usability and to share ideas for improving the tool. Content analysis was used to analyse the interview data.Results
Feedback from residents and family included suggestions to enhance the tool's content and use of plain language, and suggestions for potential application of the tool.Conclusion
Feedback highlighted the value of engaging residents and family members in the development of a communication tool. The communication tool offers a structured format to support participation of residents and families in information sharing for care discussions with the healthcare team.
SUBMITTER: Cranley L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9285466 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionThe discharge conversation is a critical component of the emergency department encounter. Studies suggest that emergency medicine (EM) residency education is deficient in formally training residents on the patient discharge conversation. Our goal was to assess the proficiency of EM residents in addressing essential elements of a comprehensive discharge conversation; identify which components of the discharge conversation are omitted; introduce "DC HOME," a standardized discharge mnemonic; and determine whether its implementation improved resident performance and patient satisfaction.MethodsThis was a prospective observational pre- and post-intervention study done by convenience sampling of 400 resident discharge encounters. Resident physicians were observed by attending physicians who completed an evaluation, answering "yes" or "no" as to whether residents addressed six components of a comprehensive discharge. The six components include the following: diagnosis; care rendered; health and lifestyle modifications; obstacles after discharge; medications; and expectations - or "DC HOME." Didactics introducing the mnemonic "DC HOME" was provided to resident physicians. Patient feedback and satisfaction were collected after each encounter, and we recorded differences between pre-intervention and post-intervention encounters.ResultsResident physicians improved significantly in all six components of "DC HOME" from pre-and-post intervention: discharge diagnosis (P = 0.0036) and the remaining five components (P<0.0001). There was a statistically significant improvement in patients' perception for health and lifestyle modifications, obstacles after discharge, medications, expectations after discharge (P<0.0001), and discharge diagnosis (P = 0.0029). Patient satisfaction scores improved significantly (P = 0.005). Time spent with patients during discharge increased from 2 minutes and 42 seconds to 4 minutes and 4 seconds (P<0.0001).ConclusionEM residents frequently omit key components of the discharge conversation. The implementation of the "DC HOME" discharge mnemonic improves resident discharge performance, patient perception, and overall patient satisfaction.
| S-EPMC7806327 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patient recall of treatment information is a key variable towards chronic disease (CD) management. It is unclear what communication and patient participation characteristics predict recall.To assess what aspects of doctor-patient communication predict patient recall of medication information. To describe lifestyle treatment recall, in CD primary care patients.Observational study within a RCT.Community-based primary care (PC) practices. Family physicians (n=18): practicing >5 years, with a CD patient caseload. Patients (n=159): >40 years old, English speaking, computer literate, off-target hypertension, type II diabetes and/or dyslipidaemia.Patient characteristics: age, education, number of CDs. Information characteristics: length of encounter, medication status, medication class. Communication variables: socio-emotional utterances, physician dominance and communication control scores and PACE (ask, check and express) utterances, measured by RIAS. Number of medication themes, dialogue and initiative measured by MEDICODE.Recall of CD, lifestyle treatment and medication information.Frequency of lifestyle discussions varied by topic. Patients recalled 43% (alcohol), 52% (diet) to 70% (exercise) of discussions. Two and a half of six possible medication themes were broached per medication discussion. Less than one was recalled. Discussing more themes, greater dialogue and patient initiative were significant predictors of improved medication information recall.Critical treatment information is infrequently exchanged. Active patient engagement and explicit conversations about medications are associated with improved treatment information recall in off-target CD patients followed in PC.Providers cannot take for granted that long-term off-target CD patients recall information. They need to encourage patient participation to improve recall of treatment information.
| S-EPMC5513012 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWhile patient and family engagement may improve clinical care and research, current practices for engagement in Canadian intensive care units (ICUs) are unknown.MethodsWe developed and administered a cross-sectional questionnaire to ICU leaders of current engagement practices, facilitators, and barriers to engagement, and whether engagement was a priority, using to an ordinal Likert scale from 1 to 10.ResultsThe response rate was 53.4% (124/232). Respondents were from 11 provinces and territories, mainly from medical surgical ICUs (76%) and community hospitals (70%). Engagement in patient care included bedside care (84%) and bedside rounds (66%), presence during procedures/crises (65%), and survey completion (77%). Research engagement included ethics committees (36%), protocol review (31%), and knowledge translation (30%). Facilitators of engagement in patient care included family meetings (87%), open visitation policies (81%), and engagement as an institutional priority (74%). Support from departmental (43%) and hospital (33%) leadership was facilitator of research engagement. Time was the main barrier to engagement in any capacity. Engagement was a higher priority in patient care vs research (median [interquartile range], 8 [7-9] vs 3 [1-7]; P < 0.001) and in pediatric vs adult ICUs (10 [9-10] vs 8 [7-9]; P = 0.003). Research engagement was significantly higher in academic vs other ICUs (7 [5-8] vs 2 [1-4]; P < 0.001), and pediatric vs adult ICUs (7 [5-8] vs 3 [1-6]; P = 0.01).ConclusionsOrganizational strategies and institutional support were key facilitators of engagement. Engagement in patient care was a higher priority than engagement in research.
| S-EPMC9640777 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeProstate cancer screening guidelines have changed as new evidence showing an equivocal mortality benefit led many organizations to relax recommendations for this screening and instead suggest shared decision making. Presently, it is unknown how successfully these conversations happen. Our objective was to understand men's communication preferences when they discuss prostate cancer screening.MethodsIn this scoping review, we searched 4 electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) and the gray literature. Additional studies were obtained from reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles. We included qualitative studies reporting patient perspectives relevant to the research question and published in English. Two independent researchers screened titles and abstracts based on these criteria, conducted a full-text review for final inclusion, evaluated the remaining articles for validity, extracted data, and used thematic analysis to build a thematic framework. A subgroup analysis was performed for Black men as many studies elicited their perspectives.ResultsAnalyses were based on 29 studies. We identified 4 main themes that men described as critical for successful prostate cancer screening risk discussions with their primary care clinician: using everyday language, receiving a sufficient quantity of information, spending enough time, and having a trusting and respectful relationship. Three additional themes emerged that prohibited men from having any discussions at all: having already decided to pursue prostate cancer screening, being passive in medical encounters, and perceiving threat to one's well-being. Black men faced racism, which impacted medical interactions.ConclusionsOur findings point to strategies to support men's communication preferences and address preconceptions surrounding prostate cancer screening. More studies are needed in certain underrepresented populations given the propensity for disparity in health outcomes.
| S-EPMC10519764 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn long-term residential care (LTRC), caregivers' attempts to provide person-centered care can be challenging when assisting residents living with a communication disorder (eg, aphasia) and/or a language-cultural barrier. Mobile communication technology, which includes smartphones and tablets and their software apps, offers an innovative solution for preventing and overcoming communication breakdowns during activities of daily living. There is a need to better understand the availability, relevance, and stability of commercially available communication apps (cApps) that could support person-centered care in the LTRC setting.ObjectiveThis study aimed to (1) systematically identify and evaluate commercially available cApps that could support person-centered communication (PCC) in LTRC and (2) examine the stability of cApps over 2 years.MethodsWe conducted systematic searches of the Canadian App Store (iPhone Operating System platform) in 2015 and 2017 using predefined search terms. cApps that met the study's inclusion criteria underwent content review and quality assessment.ResultsAlthough the 2015 searches identified 519 unique apps, only 27 cApps were eligible for evaluation. The 2015 review identified 2 augmentative and alternative cApps and 2 translation apps as most appropriate for LTRC. Despite a 205% increase (from 199 to 607) in the number of augmentative and alternative communication and translation apps assessed for eligibility in the 2017 review, the top recommended cApps showed suitability for LTRC and marketplace stability.ConclusionsThe recommended existing cApps included some PCC features and demonstrated marketplace longevity. However, cApps that focus on the inclusion of more PCC features may be better suited for use in LTRC, which warrants future development. Furthermore, cApp content and quality would improve by including research evidence and experiential knowledge (eg, nurses and health care aides) to inform app development. cApps offer care staff a tool that could promote social participation and person-centered care.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/10.2196/17136.
| S-EPMC7177427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeBoth patients and clinicians have described discussions of potential opioid risks as challenging. This study's goal was to understand patient perspectives on discussing opioid risks with primary care clinicians (PCCs).MethodsPatients identified to be at elevated risk for problems with opioids (ie, opioid use disorder [OUD] diagnosis, taking a medication for OUD, or having ≥3 opioid prescriptions in the last year) were recruited from an integrated, Upper Midwest health system to participate in semi-structured qualitative interviews. Interview questions aimed to better understand patient views on conversations about opioid risks with PCCs and perceptions of OUD screening and treatment in primary care. Interviews were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach.ResultsA total of 20 patients participated (mean age: 53.5 years; 65% male). Six themes emerged: 1) archetypes of patient relationships with opioids (long-term opioid use, acute opioid use, OUD in treatment, OUD no treatment) require different approaches in discussing opioid risks; 2) patients may develop their own archetypes about PCCs and opioids; 3) these archetypes may help guide how conversations about opioids are conducted (eg, PCC demeanor, terminology); 4) most patients believe that primary care is an appropriate setting for opioid risk discussions; 5) patients may have limited awareness of the availability and value of overdose rescue medications; and 6) handouts are more acceptable if perceived to come from the PCC's assessment instead of a computer.ConclusionsResults suggest that patients generally perceive discussing opioid risks with PCCs acceptable. PCCs should tailor opioid risk conversations to patients' specific situations and needs.
| S-EPMC9584087 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany patients receive unwanted, low-value, high-intensity care at the end of life because of poor communication with health care providers. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility of using a physician assistant and an electronic tool to facilitate discussions about goals of care.MethodWe conducted a pilot study for the intervention (physician assistant-led discussion using an electronic tool) from Apr. 1 to Aug. 31, 2019. Patients aged 79 years or older admitted to the Royal Victoria Hospital (Barrie, Ontario) with either (i) no documented resuscitation preferences or (ii) a request for life-sustaining treatments in the event of a life-threatening illness were eligible for the intervention. The goal of this study was to complete more than 30 interventions. The primary outcomes included the proportion of consenting eligible patients, the time required and the proportion of patients changing their resuscitation preferences.ResultsA total of 763 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 337 eligible for the intervention. Of these, 49 cases were contacted for consent, and 37 interventions were completed (75.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 61.1%-86.6%). On average, the intervention required 50 minutes (standard deviation 21) to complete. Overall, 31 interventions resulted in a change in resuscitation preferences (83.7%, 95% CI 68.0%-93.8%), with 22 patients choosing to forgo any access to life-sustaining treatments in the event of a life-threatening illness (59.4%, 95% CI 42.1%-75.2%).InterpretationIn this pilot study, the intervention was completed in a minority of eligible patients and required substantial time; however, it led to many changes in resuscitation preferences. Before designing a study to evaluate its impact, the intervention needs to be revised to make it more efficient to administer.
| S-EPMC7505521 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePatient engagement (PE) is warranted when treatment risks and outcomes are uncertain, as is the case for higher risk medical devices. Previous research found that patients were not engaged in discussions or decisions about implantable medical devices. This study explored physician views about engaging patients in such discussions.DesignQualitative interviews using a basic descriptive approach.SettingCanada.ParticipantsPracticing cardiovascular and orthopaedic physicians.Main outcome measuresLevel, processes and determinants of PE in medical device discussions and decisions.ResultsViews were largely similar among 10 cardiovascular and 12 orthopaedic physicians interviewed. Most said that it was feasible to inform and sometimes involve patients in discussions, but not to partner with them in medical device decision-making. PE was constrained by patient (comfort with PE, technical understanding, physiologic/demographic characteristics, prognosis), physician (device preferences, time), health system (purchasing contracts) and device factors (number of devices on market, comparative advantage). A framework was generated to help physicians engage patients in discussions about medical devices, even when decisions may not be preference sensitive due to multiple constraints on choice.ConclusionsThis study identified that patients are not engaged in discussions or decisions about implantable medical devices. This may be due to multiple constraints. Further research should establish the legitimacy, prevalence and impact of constraining factors, and examine whether and how different levels and forms of PE are needed and feasible.
| S-EPMC5412024 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionEngaging patients and family members as partners in research increases the relevance of study results and enhances patient-centered care; how to best engage patients and families in research is unknown.MethodsWe tested a novel research approach that engages and trains patients and family members as researchers to see if we could understand and describe the experiences of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and their families. Former patients and family members conducted focus groups and interviews with patients (n = 11) and families of surviving (n = 14) and deceased (n = 7) patients from 13 ICUs in Alberta Canada, and analyzed data using conventional content analysis. Separate blinded qualitative researchers conducted an independent analysis.ResultsParticipants described three phases in the patient/family "ICU journey"; admission to ICU, daily care in ICU, and post-ICU experience. Admission to ICU was characterized by family shock and disorientation with families needing the presence and support of a provider. Participants described five important elements of daily care: honoring the patient's voice, the need to know, decision-making, medical care, and culture in ICU. The post-ICU experience was characterized by the challenges of the transition from ICU to a hospital ward and long-term effects of critical illness. These "ICU journey" experiences were described as integral to appropriate interactions with the care team and comfort and trust in the ICU, which were perceived as essential for a community of caring. Participants provided suggestions for improvement: 1) provide a dedicated family navigator, 2) increase provider awareness of the fragility of family trust, 3) improve provider communication skills, 4) improve the transition from ICU to hospital ward, and 5) inform patients about the long-term effects of critical illness. Analyses by independent qualitative researchers identified similar themes.ConclusionsPatient and family member-led research is feasible and can identify opportunities for improving care.
| S-EPMC4975402 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPatient and family-centered rounds (PFCRs) are an important element of family-centered care often used in the inpatient pediatric setting. However, techniques and best practices vary, and faculty, trainees, nurses, and advanced care providers may not receive formal education in strategies that specifically enhance communication on PFCRs.MethodsHarnessing the use of structured communication, we developed the Patient and Family-Centered I-PASS Safer Communication on Rounds Every Time (SCORE) Program. The program uses a standardized framework for rounds communication via the I-PASS mnemonic, principles of health literacy, and techniques for patient/family engagement and bidirectional communication. The resident and advanced care provider training materials, a component of the larger SCORE Program, incorporate a flipped classroom approach as well as interactive exercises, simulations, and virtual learning options to optimize learning and retention via a 90-minute workshop.ResultsTwo hundred forty-six residents completed the training and were evaluated on their knowledge and confidence regarding key elements of the curriculum. Eighty-eight percent of residents agreed/strongly agreed that after training they could activate and engage families and all members of the interprofessional team to create a shared mental model; 90% agreed/strongly agreed that they could discuss the roles/responsibilities of various team members during PFCRs.DiscussionThe Patient and Family-Centered I-PASS SCORE Program provides a structured framework for teaching advanced communication techniques that can improve provider knowledge of and confidence with engaging and communicating with patients/families and other members of the interprofessional team during PFCRs.
| S-EPMC9360201 | biostudies-literature