ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2020
Assessing Patients' Perceptions of Clinician Communication: Acceptability of Brief Point-of-Care Surveys in Primary Care.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is Sociodemographic Status Associated with Empathic Communication and Decision Quality in Diabetes Care?Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Trial
- From Evidence to Value: Integrating Evidence-Based Medicine, Patient Safety, Quality Improvement, Learning Health Systems, and Value-Based Healthcare.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Review
- BUILDING A COMMUNITY OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL PRACTICE: THE CASE OF ANTHROPOLOGISTS WORKING WITHIN THE UNITED STATES' LARGEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.Human organization · 2023Article
- Association of Patients' Perception of Quality of Healthcare Received and Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake: An Analysis of 2 National Surveys in the USA.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImproving patient-centered (PC) communication is a priority in many healthcare organizations. Most PC communication metrics are distal to the care encounter and lack clear attribution, thereby reducing relevance for leaders and clinicians.
objectiveWe assessed the acceptability of measuring PC communication at the point-of-care.
designA brief patient survey was conducted immediately post-primary care appointments at one Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Audit-feedback reports were created for clinicians and discussed in qualitative interviews.
participantsA total of 485 patients completed the survey. Thirteen interviews were conducted with clinicians and hospital leaders. MAIN MEASURE(S): Measures included collaboRATE (a 3-item tool measuring PC communication), a question about how well needs were met, and overall visit satisfaction. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to characterize the mean and distribution of collaboRATE scores and determine the proportion of patients giving clinicians a "top score" on each item. Associations among responses were examined. Interviews focused on the value of measuring PC communication and were analyzed using a framework approach. KEY
resultsThe proportion of patients giving PC communication "top scores" ranged from 41 to 92% for 16 clinicians who had ≥ 25 completed surveys. Among patients who gave "top scores" for PC communication, the odds of reporting that needs were "completely met" were 10.8 times higher (p < .001) and the odds of reporting being "very satisfied" with their care were 13.3 times higher (p < .001) compared with patients who did not give "top scores." Interviewees found clinician-specific feedback useful; concerns included prioritizing this data when other measures are used to evaluate clinicians' performance. Difficulties improving PC communication given organizational structures were noted. Recommendations for interventions included peer-to-peer education and mentoring by top-scoring clinicians.
conclusionsAssessing provider communication at the point-of-care is acceptable and useful to clinicians. Challenges remain to properly incentivize and support the use of this data for improving PC communication.
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.