I am ready to see you now, Doctor! A mixed-method study of the Let's Discuss Health website implementation in Primary Care

Reinforcing the humanity in healthcare: The Glasgow Consensus Statement on effective communication in clinical encounters

Contemporary healthcare is characterized by multidisciplinary teamwork across a vast array of primary, secondary and tertiary services, augmented by progressively more technology and data. While these developments aim to improve care, they have also created obstacles and new challenges for both patients and health professionals. Indeed, the increasingly fragmented and transactional nature of clinical encounters can dehumanize the care experience across disciplines and specialties. Effective communication plays a pivotal role in reinforcing the humanity of healthcare through the delivery of person-centered care - compassionate, collaborative care that focuses on the needs of each patient as a whole person. After convening at the International Conference on Communication in Healthcare (Glasgow, 2022), an interdisciplinary group of researchers, educators and health professionals worked together to develop a framework for effective communication that both acknowledges critical challenges in contemporary health services and reinforces the humanity of healthcare. The Glasgow Consensus Statement is intended to function as a useful international touchstone for the training and practice of health professionals, fully recognizing and respecting that different countries are at different stages when it comes to teaching, assessment and policy. It also provides a vocabulary for monitoring the impact of system-level challenges. While effective communication may not change the structure of healthcare, it can improve the process if health professionals are supported in infusing the system with their own innate humanity and applying the framework offered within this consensus statement to reinforce the humanity in everyday practice.

The psychological consequences of living with coronary heart disease: Are patients' psychological needs served? A mixed-method study in Germany

INTRODUCTION

This mixed-method study explores psychological needs, access and barriers in coronary heart disease (CHD) patients with and without mental health issues (MHI) within the German healthcare system.

METHODS

This study was conducted in three different healthcare settings: two hospitals, two rehabilitation clinics and three cardiology practices in Cologne, Germany. Patients were screened for angiographically documented CHD and other inclusion criteria. In total, 364 CHD patients took part in this study. It consisted of two parts: In the first part, participants filled in a newly developed questionnaire about their psychological needs, access and barriers within the healthcare system and their contact with their doctor in these matters. Then, patients were screened for MHIs with the help of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). When a score above seven was scored on the HADS, patients were additionally screened for specific MHIs using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders. In the second part, 20 participants were subsequently interviewed in a semi-structured interview to generate more in-depth findings.

RESULTS

The interviews show that CHD patients with and without MHI experienced a cardiac event as life-changing and had an urgent need to talk about CHD with their doctor, mostly the general practitioner (GP). When the GP spoke to the patient shortly after the cardiac event, patients experienced relief and were better able to cope with their illness. Only 9.1% reported being aided in their search for psychotherapeutic treatment or drug treatment (4.1%).

CONCLUSION

The needs of CHD patients with and without MHI were not adequately satisfied within our sample. Psychological measures are necessary for sufficient improvement, such as training of doctors in doctor-patient communication (e.g., better support in coping with MHI/CHD), improvements in the procedure (more time for conversations during doctor contacts), and improvement of structural requirements (referring patients faster to psychotherapists).

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

We received input from patients during pretests and used the feedback to tailor our questionnaire and the interview guidelines. Afterwards, we disseminated the main results for the patient and public involvement (e.g., public lectures, leaflets for self-help groups, etc.).

I am ready to see you now, Doctor! A mixed-method study of the Let's Discuss Health website implementation in Primary Care

Background

Let's Discuss Health (LDH) is a website that encourages patients to prepare their health‐care encounters by providing communication training, review of topics and questions that are important to them.

Objective

To describe LDH implementation during primary care (PC) visits for chronic illnesses.

Methods

Design: Descriptive mixed‐method study. Setting: 6 PC clinics. Participants: 156 patients and 51 health‐care providers (HCP). Intervention: LDH website implementation. Outcome Measures: Perceived quality and usefulness of LDH; perceived quality of HCP‐patient communication; patient activation; LDH integration in routine PC practices and barriers to its use.

Results

Patients reported a positive perception of the website in that it helped them to adopt an active role in the encounters; recall their visit agenda and reduce encounter‐related stress; feel more confident to ask questions, feel more motivated to prepare their future medical visits and improve their chronic illness management. However, a certain disconnect emerged between HCP and patient perceptions as to the value of LDH in promoting a sense of partnership and collaboration. The main barriers to the use of LDH are HCP lack of interest, limited access to technology, lack of time and language barriers.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that it is advantageous for patients to prepare their medical encounters. However, the study needs to be replicated in other medical environments using larger and more diverse samples.

Patient and Public Contribution

Patient partners were involved in the conduct of this study.