Engaging Patients to Ask More Questions: What's the Best Way? A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

"What Else Could It Be?" A Scoping Review of Questions for Patients to Ask Throughout the Diagnostic Process

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic errors are a global patient safety challenge. Over 75% of diagnostic errors in ambulatory care result from breakdowns in patient-clinician communication. Encouraging patients to speak up and ask questions has been recommended as one strategy to mitigate these failures.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of the scoping review was to identify, summarize, and thematically map questions patients are recommended to ask during ambulatory encounters along the diagnostic process. This is the first step in a larger study to co-design a patient-facing question prompt list for patients to use throughout the diagnostic process.

METHODS

Medline and Google Scholar were searched to identify question lists in the peer-reviewed literature. Organizational websites and a search engine were searched to identify question lists in the gray literature. Articles and resources were screened for eligibility and data were abstracted. Interrater reliability (K = 0.875) was achieved.

RESULTS

A total of 5509 questions from 235 resources met inclusion criteria. Most questions (n = 4243, 77.02%) were found in the gray literature. Question lists included an average of 23.44 questions. Questions were most commonly coded along the diagnostic process categories of treatment (2434 questions from 250 resources), communication of the diagnosis (1160 questions, 204 resources), and outcomes (766 questions, 172 resources).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recommendations for patients to ask questions, most question prompt lists focus on later stages of the diagnostic process such as communication of the diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. Further research is needed to identify and prioritize diagnostic-related questions from the patient perspective and to develop simple, usable guidance on question-asking to improve patient safety across the diagnostic continuum.

Identifying Strategies to Improve Shared Decision Making for Pregnant Patients' Decisions about Prenatal Genetic Screens and Diagnostic Tests

PURPOSE

Prenatal genetic screens and diagnostic tests are vital components of prenatal care. The first prenatal visit is a critical time in the decision-making process when patients decide whether to use these tests in addition to address a series of other essential prenatal care aspects. We conducted this study to examine the role of a shared decision-making (SDM) instrument to support these discussions.

METHODS

We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial of patients allocated to an SDM tool or usual care at their first prenatal visit. Participants completed a baseline survey to measure decision-making needs and preferences. Direct observation was conducted and analyzed using the OPTION scale to measure SDM during prenatal genetic testing discussions.

RESULTS

Levels of SDM were similar across groups (P = 0.081). The highest levels of SDM were observed during screening test discussions (NEST 2.4 ± 0.9 v. control 2.6 ± 1.0). Lowest levels were observed in discussions about patients' preference for risk versus diagnostic information (NEST 1.0 ± 1.1 v. control 1.2 ± 1.3).

CONCLUSION

Study findings demonstrate the need for targeted patient-focused and provider-focused efforts to improve SDM to enhance patients' informed decision making about these options. Importantly, patients' baseline knowledge and attitudes need to be considered given that patients with less knowledge may need more carefully crafted communication.

HIGHLIGHTS

Choices about whether, when, and how to use prenatal genetic tests are highly preference-based decisions, with patients' baseline attitudes about these options as a major driver in health care discussions.The decision-making process is also shaped by patient preferences regarding a shared or informed decision-making process for medical decisions that are highly personal and have significant ramifications for obstetric outcomes.There is a need to develop targeted efforts to improve decision making and enhance patients' ability to make informed decisions about prenatal genetic tests in early pregnancy.

Pain Self-Efficacy Can Improve During a Visit With an Orthopedic Surgeon

BACKGROUND

Greater pain self-efficacy (PSE) is associated with reduced pain, fewer limitations, and increased quality of life after treatment for orthopedic conditions. The aims of this study were to (1) assess if PSE improves during a visit with an orthopedic surgeon and (2) identify modifiable visit factors that are associated with an increase in PSE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a prospective observational study of orthopedic clinic visits at a multispecialty clinic from February to May 2022. New patients who presented to one of six orthopedic surgeons were approached for the study. Patients who provided consent completed a pre-visit questionnaire including the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) and demographic questions. A trained research member recorded the five-item Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making Instrument (OPTION-5) score, number of questions asked, and visit duration. Immediately after the visit, patients completed a post-visit questionnaire consisting of the PSEQ and Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS).

RESULTS

Of 132 patients enrolled, 61 (46%) had improved PSE after the orthopedic visit, with 38 (29%) having improvement above a clinically significant threshold. There were no significant differences between patients with increased PSE and those without increased PSE when comparing the PICS, OPTION-5, questions asked, or visit duration.

CONCLUSION

Almost half of the patients had improvement in PSE during an orthopedic visit. The causal pathway to how to improve PSE and the durability of the improved PSE have implications in strategies to improve patient outcomes in orthopedic surgery, such as communication methods and shared decision-making. Future research can focus on studying different interventions that facilitate improving PSE. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(4):e197-e203.].

Development of a conceptual model of the capacity for patients to engage in their health care: a group concept mapping study

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement is seen as a necessary component in achieving the triple aim of improved population health, improved experience of care, and lower per capita health care costs. While there has been a substantial increase in the number of tools and patient-centered initiatives designed to help patients participate in health decisions, there remains a limited understanding of engagement from the perspective of patients and a lack of measures designed to capture the multi-faceted nature of the concept.

METHODS

Development of a concept map of patient engagement followed a five-step modified Group Concept Mapping (GCM) methodology of preparation, generation, structuring, analysis and interpretation. We engaged a Project Advisory Committee at each step, along with three rounds of survey collection from clinicians and patients for element generation (272 clinicians, 61 patients), statement sorting (30 clinicians, 15 patients), and ranking and rating of statements (159 clinicians, 67 patients). The survey of three separate samples, as opposed to focus groups of 'experts,' was an intentional decision to gain a broad perspective about the concept of patient engagement. We conducted the structure and analysis steps within the groupwisdom concept mapping software.

RESULTS

The final concept map comprised 47 elements organized into 5 clusters: Relationship with Provider, Patient Attitudes and Behaviors, Access, Internal Resources and External Resources. There was considerable agreement in the way elements in each cluster were rated by patients and clinicians. An analysis of the importance of the constitutive elements of patient engagement relative to their addressability highlighted actionable items in the domain of Relationship with Provider, aimed at building trust and enabling patients to ask questions. At the same time, the analysis also identified elements traditionally considered barriers to engagement, like personal access to the internet and the patient's level of digital literacy, as difficult to address by the healthcare system, but also relatively less important for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Through our GCM approach, incorporating perspectives of both patients and clinicians, we identified items that can be used to assess patient engagement efforts by healthcare systems. As a result, our study offers specific insight into areas that can be targeted for intervention by healthcare systems to improve patient engagement.

Optimizing the design and implementation of question prompt lists to support person-centred care: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Question prompt lists (QPLs) are lists of questions that patients may want to discuss with clinicians. QPLs support person-centred care and have been associated with many beneficial outcomes including improved patient question-asking, and the amount and quality of the information provided by clinicians. The purpose of this study was to review published research on QPLs to explore how QPL design and implementation can be optimized.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Joanna Briggs Database from inception to 8 May 2022, for English language studies of any design that evaluated QPLs. We used summary statistics and text to report study characteristics, and QPL design and implementation.

RESULTS

We included 57 studies published from 1988 to 2022 by authors in 12 countries on a range of clinical topics. Of those, 56% provided the QPL, but few described how QPLs were developed. The number of questions varied widely (range 9-191). Most QPLs were single-page handouts (44%) but others ranged from 2 to 33 pages. Most studies implemented a QPL alone with no other accompanying strategy; most often in a print format before consultations by mail (18%) or in the waiting room (66%). Both patients and clinicians identified numerous benefits to patients of QPLs (e.g., increased patient confidence to ask questions, and patient satisfaction with communication or care received; and reduced anxiety about health status or treatment). To support use, patients desired access to QPLs in advance of clinician visits, and clinicians desired information/training on how to use the QPL and answer questions. Most (88%) studies reported at least one beneficial impact of QPLs. This was true even for single-page QPLs with few questions unaccompanied by other implementation strategies. Despite favourable views of QPLs, few studies assessed outcomes amongst clinicians.

CONCLUSION

This review identified QPL characteristics and implementation strategies that may be associated with beneficial outcomes. Future research should confirm these findings via systematic review and explore the benefits of QPLs from the clinician's perspective.

PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Following this review, we used the findings to develop a QPL on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and interviewed women and clinicians about QPL design including content, format, enablers and barriers of use, and potential outcomes including beneficial impacts and possible harms (will be published elsewhere).

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: As Seen from the Perspective of the Patient

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common nerve compression syndrome in the upper extremity and is one of the most common problems treated by hand surgeons. Despite its ubiquity-or perhaps because of it-there is a lack of unanimity regarding how best to treat CTS and what the options for treatment are. This study aimed to explore what patients find important when deciding on treatment of CTS in an effort to improve the physician-patient shared decision-making process.

Methods

An online crowdsourcing platform was used to recruit participants for this study. Study participants were first led through a clinical scenario in which the symptoms of CTS were explained. They were then asked a series of questions regarding what was important to them when deciding upon treatment. A Likert scale was used for responses.

Results

In total, 268 participant responses were included in the study. A majority of patients responded that all surveyed factors were either very important or important when considering treatment. The risk of surgery was most important, whereas postoperative pain was least important. The risk of surgery was significantly more important to patients than postoperative pain and time out of work. The cost of surgery was significantly more important to patients than postoperative pain.

Conclusions

Given the lack of consensus regarding an algorithm for the treatment of CTS, the patient's preference is increasingly important when formulating a treatment plan. The results of this study may better help physicians frame the discussion of treatment options for CTS with their patients.

Question prompt lists and caregiver question asking in pediatric specialty appointments: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Question prompt lists (QPLs) have been effective at increasing patient involvement and question asking in medical appointments, which is critical for shared decision making. We investigated whether pre-visit preparation (PVP), including a QPL, would increase question asking among caregivers of pediatric patients with undiagnosed, suspected genetic conditions.

METHODS

Caregivers were randomized to receive the PVP before their appointment (n = 59) or not (control, n = 53). Appointments were audio-recorded. Transcripts were analyzed to determine questions asked.

RESULTS

Caregivers in the PVP group asked more questions (MeanPVP = 4.36, SDPVP = 4.66 vs. Meancontrol = 2.83, SDcontrol = 3.03, p = 0.045), including QPL questions (MeanPVP = 1.05, SDPVP = 1.39 vs. Meancontrol = 0.36, SDcontrol = 0.81, p = 0.002). Caregivers whose child had insurance other than Medicaid in the PVP group asked more total and QPL questions than their counterparts in the control group (ps = 0.005 and 0.002); there was no intervention effect among caregivers of children with Medicaid or no insurance (ps = 0.775 and 0.166).

CONCLUSION

The PVP increased question asking but worked less effectively among traditionally underserved groups. Additional interventions, including provider-focused efforts, may be needed to promote engagement of underserved patients.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Patient/family-focused interventions may not be beneficial for all populations. Providers should be aware of potential implicit and explicit biases and encourage question asking to promote patient/family engagement.

Equity-Driven Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Musculoskeletal Care: Advancing Value for All

ABSTRACT

The clinical use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in musculoskeletal care is expanding, encompassing both individual patient management and population-level applications. However, without thoughtful implementation, we risk introducing or exacerbating disparities in care processes or outcomes. We outline examples of opportunities, challenges, and priorities throughout PROM implementation to equitably advance value-based care at both the patient and population level. Balancing standardization with tailored strategies can enable the large-scale implementation of PROMs while optimizing care processes and outcomes for all patients.

Efficacy of a Decision Support Intervention on Decisional Conflict Related to Hepatocellular Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of decision support intervention on treatment knowledge, decision self-efficacy, decisional conflict, and decision satisfaction in patients with hepatocellular cancer. The study was a randomized controlled trial. In all, 69 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were recruited and randomly assigned to a decision support group or a control group. Data were collected at baseline, post-test, and follow-up using self-report questionnaires. After controlling for baseline scores, the between-group difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) for treatment-related knowledge in post-test scores was 11.9 (6.1, 17.8). After controlling for baseline scores, the between-group difference (95% CI) for decisional conflict was -7.0 (-12.0, -2.0). There was no statistically significant between-group difference in decision self-efficacy and decision satisfaction. Findings supported the efficacy of decision support intervention to improve treatment knowledge and reduce decisional conflict but had no significant effect on decision self-efficacy and decision satisfaction in patients with HCC.

Patient prompts in surgical consultations: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Quality communication has been found to improve patient outcomes. Despite good communication, information may still be forgotten or misunderstood by patients. A question prompt list is a document to help patients ask questions. Question prompt lists are well perceived by various stakeholders and have been found of benefit to patients. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of patient question prompting documents in surgical outpatient consultations.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO were searched on September 13, 2021. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed in duplicate. We included English studies that investigated the use of question prompt lists and their influence on patient outcomes. We excluded studies that did not have a comparator group. Because of heterogeneity of outcome measures, meta-analysis was precluded. This study was registered with PROSPERO (identification number: CRD42021279058).

RESULTS

Searches identified 107 suitable studies; however, only 7 studies met eligibility criteria. All included studies were randomized controlled trials, but the designs of studies were heterogenous. Three out of 7 included studies were at a high risk of bias. The included studies investigated different outcomes that could be broadly categorized into 5 themes: consultation characteristics, patient engagement, patient well-being, information exchange, and patient satisfaction. None of the studies looked at patient recall of information. Aside from length of consultation, the overall results for each category were mixed.

CONCLUSION

Current literature has suggested that question prompt lists are a low-risk intervention that could improve patient engagement and patient-doctor communication; however, there is limited evidence at present to conclusively promote their usage in perioperative surgical consultations.