ArticleJournal of patient-centered research and reviews2017
Benefit of Report Card Feedback After Point-of-Care Assessment of Communication Quality Indicators.
Article in Journal of patient-centered research and reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Did You Hear What I Meant to Say?Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCommunication is crucial for patient experience and biomedical outcomes. Training programs improve communication but are too resource-intensive for sustained use across an entire health care organization. This study demonstrates in a heterogeneous set of encounters the efficacy of quantitative feedback on two groups of physician communication behaviors: 1) jargon explanation, and 2) assessment of patient understanding.
methodsWe used a secure Internet application to audio-record conversations between primary care physicians and 54 patients. Transcripts were quantitatively abstracted using explicit-criteria definitions for assessments of understanding and jargon explanations. These data were conveyed to physicians using a previously tested report card. Finally, physicians were audio-recorded with 48 other patients and compared against their baseline.
resultsBaseline transcripts included an average of 15.5 unique jargon words. Many words were spoken more than once so the total jargon count averaged 25.1. Jargon explanations were infrequent (median of 2.6/transcript). The jargon explanation ratio (fraction of jargon words spoken after or alongside a jargon explanation for that word) averaged 0.26 out of 1.0. Assessments of understanding were found in 61.1% of transcripts, but most were "OK?" questions (median of 2.22/transcript) or close-ended assessments of understanding (median of 0.59/transcript). After the report card, use of jargon explanations improved to a median of 4.8/transcript (P<0.001), and the jargon explanation ratio improved to 0.37 (P<0.02). Assessments of understanding improved to 81.3% of transcripts (P<0.03), largely due to increased use of close-ended assessments of understanding to 1.08/transcript (P<0.006).
conclusionsIt is feasible to audio-record at the point of care, abstract transcripts at a central office and improve physician-to-patient communication quality via a report card. A larger, multifaceted program may improve patient experience and biomedical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.