Which patient and doctor behaviours make a medical consultation more effective from a patient point of view. Results from a European multicentre study in 31 countries

Differences in Vaccination Consultation Preferred by Primary Health Care Workers and Residents in Community Settings

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the preference of primary HCWs and residents on vaccination consultation in community health services to provide evidence for vaccine hesitancy intervention strategies.

METHODS

A discrete choice model (DCM) was constructed to evaluate the preference difference between primary HCWs and residents on vaccination consultation in community health services in China during May-July 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 282 residents and 204 HCWs were enrolled in this study. The residents preferred consulting with an HCW-led approach (β = 2.168), with specialized content (β = 0.954), and accompanied by telephone follow-up (β = 1.552). In contrast, the HCWs preferred face-to-face consultation (β = 0.540) with an HCW-led approach (β = 0.458) and specialized content (β = 0.409), accompanied by telephone follow-up (β = 0.831). College residents and residents with underlying self-reported disease may be near-critically inclined to choose traditional consultation (an offline, face-to-face consultation with standardized content and more prolonged duration) rather than a new-media consulting group (an online consultation with specialized content within 5 min). Urban HCWs preferred long-term consultation groups (the resident-led offline consultation with follow-up lasting more than 5 min). In contrast, rural HCWs preferred efficient consultation (the HCW-led, short-duration, standardized offline consultation mode).

CONCLUSION

The selection preference for vaccine consultation reveals a gap between providers and demanders, with different groups exhibiting distinct preferences. Identifying these targeted gaps can help design more acceptable and efficient interventions, increasing their likelihood of success and leading to better resource allocation for policymakers to develop targeted vaccination policies.

Case-mix adjustments for patient reported experience and outcome measures in primary care: an empirical approach to identify patient characteristics as case-mix adjusters based on a secondary analysis of an international survey among patients and their general practitioners in 34 countries

BACKGROUND

Case-mix adjustment of patient reported experiences (PREMs) and outcomes (PROMs) of care are meant to enable fair comparison between units (e.g. care providers or countries) and to show where improvement is possible. It is important to distinguish between fair comparison and improvement potential, as case-mix adjustment may mask improvement potential. Case-mix adjustment takes into account the effect of patient characteristics that are related to the PREMs and PROMs studied, but are outside the sphere of influence of the units being compared. We developed an approach to assess which patient characteristics would qualify as case-mix adjusters, using data from an international primary care study.

RESULTS

We used multilevel analysis, with patients nested in general practices nested in countries. Case-mix adjustment is indicated under the following conditions: there is a main effect of the potential case-mix adjuster on the PREM/PROM; this effect does not vary between units; and the distribution of the potential case-mix adjuster differs between units. Random slope models were used to assess whether the impact of a potential case-mix adjuster varied between units. To assess whether a slope variance is big enough to decide that case-mix adjustment is not indicated, we compared the variances in the categories of a potential case-mix adjuster. Significance of the slope variance is not enough, because small variances may be significantly different from zero when numbers are large. We therefore need an additional criterion to consider a slope variance as important. Borrowing from the idea of a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) we proposed a difference between the variances of 0.25*variance (equivalent to a medium effect size). We applied this approach to data from the QUALICOPC (Quality and costs of primary care in Europe) study.

CONCLUSIONS

Our approach provides guidance to decide whether or not patient characteristics should be considered as case-mix adjusters. The criterion of a difference between variances of 0.25*variance works well for continuous PREMs and PROMs, but seems to be too strict for binary PREMs and PROMs. Without additional information, it is not possible to decide whether important slope variation is the result of either differences in performance between general practices or countries, or cultural differences.

Archetypes of incomplete stories in chronic illness medical encounters

OBJECTIVE

During encounters, patients and practitioners engage in conversations to address health concerns. Because these interactions are time-pressured events, it may be inevitable that any story exchanged during these encounters will be incomplete in some way, potentially jeopardizing how quality and safety of care is delivered. In this study, we explored how and why incomplete stories might arise in health interactions.

METHODS

Constructivist grounded theory methodology was used to explore how patients and practitioners approach their interactions during encounters. In this two-phase study, we interviewed patients (n = 21) then practitioners (n = 12).

RESULTS

We identified three distinct archetypes of incomplete storytelling - the hidden story, the interpreted story, and the tailored story. Measured information sharing, triadic encounters and pre-planned agendas influenced these storylines, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Both patient and practitioner participants focused on what each considered important, appropriate, and useful for productive encounters. While incomplete stories may be a reality, educating practitioners about how incomplete stories come about from both sides of the conversation creates new opportunities to optimize interactions at medical encounters for in-depth patient practitioner storytelling.

Dealing with cultural diversity in palliative care

Palliative care is increasingly confronted with cultural diversity. This can lead to various problems in practice. In this perspective article, the authors discuss in more detail which issues play a role in culture-sensitive palliative care, why naive culturalism will not solve such problems and in which direction research into this aspect of care can be further elaborated.

Patient Engagement in Oncology Practice: A Qualitative Study on Patients' and Nurses' Perspectives

Patient engagement has gained increasing attention in cancer care as it is widely acknowledged as an essential element of high-quality care. There are limited data on how oncology nurses might apply techniques that encourage patient engagement. Therefore, this study aims to understand which nursing strategies can favour patient engagement in oncological care from patients' and nurses' perspectives. We conducted a qualitative study involving oncology patients and oncology nurses. Patients were interviewed, while nurses were involved in focus groups (FGs). Both interviews and FGs were analysed by the means of thematic analysis. We interviewed six patients and conducted two FGs, involving 17 nurses. Five themes were identified from patients' interviews: effective information, having the opportunity to choose, being considered a person, trusted relationship with nurses, and receiving support and advice. Additionally, five themes were identified from the FGs: the nurse-patient relationship, personalisation of care, information style, engagement strategies, and the team. The participants highlighted the importance of comprehensive information in order for patients to feel more involved. Great importance was given to the nurse-patient relationship, which must be based on trust and mutual respect. Both nurses and patients emphasised the importance of person-centred care. A more systematic implementation of suggestions from the participants in this study is desirable for the future.

"I pretty much followed the law, and there weren't any decisions to make": A qualitative study of self-advocacy experiences of men with cancer

Current conceptualizations of patient self-advocacy focus on women with cancer, leaving knowledge of male self-advocacy deficient. The purpose of this study is to describe the key components of self-advocacy among men with cancer. Adult (≥18 years old) men with a history of invasive cancer were recruited from cancer clinics and registries. Trained researchers led individual semi-structured interviews regarding participants' challenges, how they overcame those challenges, and barriers and facilitators to their self-advocacy. All interviews were analyzed using descriptive content analysis methods and synthesized into major themes. These themes were refined after receiving feedback from key stakeholders. Participants (N = 28) reported three major self-advocacy themes: (i) managing through information and planning; (ii) finding the best team and falling in line; and (iii) strategic social connections. These themes are richly described with representative quotations for each theme and subtheme. Based on these findings, existing models of patient self-advocacy should be adjusted to encompass how men self-advocate. Clinicians should consider how gender may impact how and why patients with cancer self-advocate so that they can best support their patients in achieving patient-centered care.

Expectations and behaviour of older adults with neurological disorders regarding general practitioner consultations: an observational study

Background

Patients’ relationship with their GPs is linked to adherence, patient behaviour and satisfaction with healthcare. Several factors pertaining to this relationship have already been identified, however expectations and preferences vary depending on age and diagnosis. Chronically ill elderly patients constitute a group of patients with specific needs that are not yet understood.

Methods

For this observational study, 100 (44 female, mean age 72.72 + − 8.28 years) patients were interviewed. Multiple linear or binary logistic regression as well as analysis of variance was used to understand the link between factors pertaining to GP relationship and patient behaviour, and principal component analysis was performed to understand the underlying structure of patients’ needs.

Results

Patients attribute high importance to their GP’s opinion of them. On average, what the GP thinks about the patients is almost as important as what their partners think. Patients primarily want to be perceived as engaged, friendly and respected individuals, and it is important for patients to be liked by their GP. This importance is linked to active preparation; 65% of the patients prepared actively for GP consultations. Expectations regarding GP consultations can be split into two components: a medical aspect with a subfactor concerning emotional support, and a social component. Prominent factors influencing the relationship are the possibility to talk about emotions and mental well-being, trust, and GP competency. Satisfaction and trust were mainly linked to medical competency. Being able to show emotions or talk about mental well-being enhances perceived GP competence, satisfaction, and active patient preparation. However, a focus on the social component such as frequent talking about private topics reduces both perceived GP competency as well as active patient preparation.

Conclusion

Older patients take GP consultations seriously, and their expectations regarding GP consultations focus on medical competence and care as well as empathetic listening and understanding. Older persons seek a deeper connection to their GPs and are willing to be active and cooperative. As the patient–GP relationship influences health outcomes, treatment of older patients should be adjusted to enable this active participation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-021-02469-3.

Translation and cultural adaptation of a romanian version of the communication assessment tool (CAT_Ro)

BACKGROUND

The communication between health providers and patients influences the quality of medical care. The Communication Skills Assessment (CAT) is a reliable, validated tool, which was developed to assess interpersonal communication skills between physicians and patients. The purpose of this study was to obtain a Romanian version of the CAT (CAT_Ro), using a controlled and systematic process to translate and cross-culturally adapt the original questionnaire, since there are no validated instruments to assess healthcare professionals' communication capability in Romania.

METHODS

The study was conducted in two Departments of Internal Medicine and Rheumatology from Bucharest, Romania, using a rigorous scientific methodology for the translation process, according to literature recommendations, implicating conceptual evaluation, semantics, and cultural adaptation, which involved several steps. The updated version was pre-tested in a pilot study, which included 89 outpatients.

RESULTS

The results showed a narrow range of variability in item interpretation, without differences in patients' responses according to variables such as age, gender, education, disease type, number of previous visits with the same doctor.

CONCLUSION

CAT-Ro is the result of a comprehensive process study. It represents the first translation and cultural adaptation in Romanian of an instrument able to assess the health providers' communication skills, which was validated in a pilot study and is to be used in more extensive studies with patients from several specialties.

Responsibilities and capabilities of health engagement professionals (HEPs): Perspectives from HEPs and health consumers in Australia

Background

In Australia, the National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards (2012) stipulates that partnering with health consumers to improve health‐care experiences is one of the criteria health‐care organizations are assessed and accredited against. This standard has given rise to a role: health engagement professionals (HEPs). While there are no standard requirements for recruitment into this role, this study contributes to much needed research into understanding their responsibilities and capabilities, and their contributions to engagement outcomes.

Methods

Using a qualitative, interpretive approach, 16 HEPs and 15 health consumer representatives (who have experiences of interacting with HEPs) participated in an in‐depth phone interview in December 2019. We explored (a) the purposes of the role, (b) the responsibilities and work activities and (c) the capabilities required to carry out the responsibilities.

Results

Health engagement professionals are specialists in designing engagement mechanisms for health‐care organizations to co‐design health services with health consumers. They facilitate partnerships between health‐care organizations and health consumers. They play significant roles in listening to, facilitating understanding amongst different stakeholder groups (eg hospital management, health‐care workers and health consumers) and navigating the bureaucratic structures to influence outcomes. Four major responsibilities (advocacy, education, facilitation and administration) and four categories of capabilities (relational, communication, professional and personal) were identified.

Conclusion

A list of job responsibilities and desired capabilities of HEPs is provided to help health‐care organizations better understand the requirements for the role. This would help them decide how applicants to these roles would meet the requirements (eg experience of navigating bureaucratic systems).

Covering patient's perspective in case-based critical review articles to improve shared decision making in complex cases

BACKGROUND

The patient has always been at the centre of the evidence-based medicine model. Case-based critical reviews, such as best-evidence topics, however, are incomplete reflections of the evidence-based medicine philosophy, because they fail to consider the patient's perspective. We propose a new framework, called the 'Shared Decision Evidence Summary' (ShaDES), where the patient's perspective on available treatment options is explicitly included.

METHODS

Our framework is grounded in the critical appraisal of a clinical scenario, and the development of a clinical question, including patient characteristics, compared options and outcomes to be improved. Answers to the clinical question are informed by the literature, the evaluation of its quality and its potential usefulness to the clinical scenario. Finally, the evidence synthesis is presented to the patient to facilitate the formulation of an evidence-informed decision about the treatment options.

KEY RESULTS

Using three similar but contrasted clinical scenarios of patients with low back pain, we illustrate how considering the patient's preferences on the proposed treatment options impact the bottom line, a synthetic formulation of the answer to the focused question. ShaDES includes clinical and psychosocial components, transformed in a searchable question, with a full search strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

ShaDES is a practical framework that may facilitate clinical decisions adapted to psychological, social and other relevant non-clinical characteristics of patients.

Improving adrenaline autoinjector adherence: A psychologically informed training for healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Clinicians draw on instructional approaches when training patients with anaphylaxis to use adrenaline autoinjectors, but patient use is poor. Psychological barriers to these behaviours exist but are not considered routinely when training patients to use autoinjectors. Health Psychology principles suggest exploring these factors with patients could improve their autoinjector use.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of a 90-minute workshop training clinicians in strategies and techniques for exploring and responding to psychological barriers to autoinjector use with patients. Attendees' knowledge, confidence and likelihood of using the strategies were expected to improve.

METHODS

Impact was evaluated using a longitudinal mixed-method design. Twenty-nine clinicians (general and specialist nurses, general practitioners, and pharmacists) supporting patients with anaphylaxis in UK hospitals and general practice attended. Self-rated knowledge, confidence, and likelihood of using the strategies taught were evaluated online 1 week before, 1 to 3, and 6 to 8 weeks after the workshop. Clinicians were invited for telephone interview after attending to explore qualitatively the workshop impact.

RESULTS

χ2 analyses were significant in most cases (P < .05), with sustained (6-8 weeks) improvements in knowledge, confidence, and likelihood of using the strategies taught. Thematic analysis of interview data showed the workshop enhanced attendees' knowledge of the care pathway, understanding of patient's experience of anaphylaxis as psychological not purely physical, and altered their communication with this and other patient groups. However, interviewees perceived lack of time and organisational factors as barriers to using the strategies and techniques taught in clinical contexts.

CONCLUSION

Training clinicians in psychologically informed strategies produce sustained improvements in their confidence and knowledge around patient autoinjector education, and their likelihood of using strategies in clinical practice.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Exploring psychological barriers should be part of training patients with anaphylaxis in autoinjector use.