Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37845082›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2024

Assessing an innovative method to promote learning from patient narratives: Findings from a field experiment in ambulatory care.

Dale Shaller, Ingrid Nembhard, Sasmira Matta, Rachel Grob, Yuna Lee, Emily Warne, Richard Evans, Daniel Dicello, Maria Colon, Annery Polanco and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Dale ShallerShaller Consulting Group, Stillwater, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2732-5214
Ingrid NembhardHealth Care Management Department, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7696-4832
Sasmira MattaHealth Care Management Department, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Rachel GrobCenter for Patient Partnerships, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Yuna LeeDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9940-2178
Emily WarneCenter for Patient Partnerships, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Richard EvansNew York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Daniel DicelloNew York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Maria ColonNew York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Annery PolancoNew York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Mark SchlesingerDepartment of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Funding

Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems CAHPS VU18HS016978 · AHRQ · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI CLEARY, PAUL D · 2007 to 2021
$20.3M
AHRQ HHS U18 HS016978
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess whether an online interactive report designed to facilitate interpretation of patients' narrative feedback produces change in ambulatory staff learning, behavior at the individual staff and practice level, and patient experience survey scores. DATA SOURCES AND

settingWe studied 22 ambulatory practice sites within an academic medical center using three primary data sources: 333 staff surveys; 20 in-depth interviews with practice leaders and staff; and 9551 modified CG-CAHPS patient experience surveys augmented by open-ended narrative elicitation questions. STUDY

designWe conducted a cluster quasi-experimental study, comparing 12 intervention and 10 control sites. At control sites, narratives were delivered free-form to site administrators via email; at intervention sites, narratives were delivered online with interactive tools for interpretation, accompanied by user training. We assessed control-versus-intervention site differences in learning, behavior, and patient experience scores. DATA COLLECTION: Staff surveys and interviews were completed at intervention and control sites, 9 months after intervention launch. Patient surveys were collected beginning 4 months pre-launch through 9 months post-launch. We used control-versus-intervention and difference-in-difference analyses for survey data and thematic analysis for interview data. PRINCIPAL

findingsInterviews suggested that the interface facilitated narrative interpretation and use for improvement. Staff survey analyses indicated enhanced learning from narratives at intervention sites (29% over control sites' mean of 3.19 out of 5 across eight domains, p < 0.001) and greater behavior change at staff and practice levels (31% and 21% over control sites' means of 3.35 and 3.39, p < 0.001, respectively). Patient experience scores for interactions with office staff and wait time information increased significantly at intervention sites, compared to control sites (3.7% and 8.2%, respectively); however, provider listening scores declined 3.3%.

conclusionsPatient narratives presented through structured feedback reporting methods can catalyze positive changes in staff learning, promote behavior change, and increase patient experience scores in domains of non-clinical interaction.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CarePatientsHumansResearch DesignSurveys and Questionnairesfeedback reportinginterventionpatient experiencepatient narrativesquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID37845082
PMCPMC10915476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.