Patient-based outcome results from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice. Medical communication and technology: a video-based process study of the use of decision aids in primary care consultations. The effects of communication skills training on patients' participation during medical interviews. Crossing the digital divide: evaluating online communication between patients and their providers. Standardized instructions: do they improve communication of discharge information from the emergency department? Physicians' communication with a cancer patient and a relative: a randomized study assessing the efficacy of consolidation workshops. Effects of communication skills training and a Question Prompt Sheet to improve communication with older cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial. Effect of a triage-based E-mail system on clinic resource use and patient and physician satisfaction in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. Primary care guidelines on consultation practices: the effectiveness of computerized versus paper-based versions. A cluster randomized controlled trial among newly qualified primary care physicians.
Shared decision-making (SDM) between professionals and patients is increasingly advocated from ethical principles. Some data are accruing about the effects of such approaches on health or other patient-based outcomes. These effects often vary substantially between studies.
                Our aim was to evaluate the effects of training GPs in SDM, and the use of simple risk communication aids in general practice, on patient-based outcomes.
                A cluster randomized trial with crossover was carried out with the participation of 20 recently qualified GPs in urban and rural general practices in Gwent, South Wales. A total of 747 patients with known atrial fibrillation, prostatism, menorrhagia or menopausal symptoms were invited to a consultation to review their condition or treatments. After baseline, participating doctors were randomized to receive training in (i) SDM skills; or (ii) the use of simple risk communication aids, using simulated patients. The alternative training was then provided for the final study phase. Patients were randomly allocated to a consultation during baseline or intervention 1 (SDM or risk communication aids) or intervention 2 phases. A randomly selected half of the consultations took place in 'research clinics' to evaluate the effects of more time for consultations, compared with usual surgery time. Patient-based outcomes were assessed at exit from consultation and 1 month follow-up. These were: COMRADE instrument (principal measures; subscales of risk communication and confidence in decision), and a range of secondary measures (anxiety, patient enablement, intention to adhere to chosen treatment, satisfaction with decision, support in decision making and SF-12 health status measure). Multilevel modelling was carried out with outcome score as the dependent variable, and follow-up point (i.e. exit or 1 month later for each patient), patient and doctor levels of explanatory variables.
                No statistically significant changes in patient-based outcomes due to the training interventions were found: COMRADE risk communication score increased 0.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to 2.32] after risk communication training and 0.9 (95% CI -0.89 to 2.35) after SDM training; and COMRADE satisfaction with communication score increased by 1.0 (95% CI -1.1 to 3.1) after risk communication, and decreased by 0.6 (95% CI 2.7 to -1.5) after SDM training. Patients' confidence in the decision (2.1 increase, 95% CI 0.7-3.5, P < 0.01) and expectation to adhere to chosen treatments (0.7 increase, 95% CI 0.04-1.36, P < 0.05) were significantly greater among patients seen in the research clinics (when more time was available) compared with usual surgery time. Most outcomes deteriorated between exit and 1 month later. There was no interaction between intervention effects.
                Patients can be more involved in treatment decisions, and risks and benefits of treatment options can be explained in more detail, without adversely affecting patient-based outcomes. SDM and risk communication may be advocated from values and ethical principles even without evidence of health gain or improvement in patient-based outcomes, but the resources required to enhance these professional skills must also be taken into consideration. These data also indicate the benefits of extra consultation time. Much of the research on decision-making in health care has focused on consultation outcomes. Less is known about the process by which clinicians and patients come to a treatment decision. This study aimed to quantitatively describe the behaviour shown by doctors and patients during primary care consultations when three types of decision aids were used to promote treatment decision-making in a randomised controlled trial.
                A video-based study set in an efficacy trial which compared the use of paper-based guidelines (control) with two forms of computer-based decision aids (implicit and explicit versions of DARTS II). Treatment decision concerned warfarin anti-coagulation to reduce the risk of stroke in older patients with atrial fibrillation. Twenty nine consultations were video-recorded. A ten-minute 'slice' of the consultation was sampled for detailed content analysis using existing interaction analysis protocols for verbal behaviour and ethological techniques for non-verbal behaviour.
                Median consultation times (quartiles) differed significantly depending on the technology used. Paper-based guidelines took 21 (19-26) minutes to work through compared to 31 (16-41) minutes for the implicit tool; and 44 (39-55) minutes for the explicit tool. In the ten minutes immediately preceding the decision point, GPs dominated the conversation, accounting for 64% (58-66%) of all utterances and this trend was similar across all three arms of the trial. Information-giving was the most frequent activity for both GPs and patients, although GPs did this at twice the rate compared to patients and at higher rates in consultations involving computerised decision aids. GPs' language was highly technically focused and just 7% of their conversation was socio-emotional in content; this was half the socio-emotional content shown by patients (15%). However, frequent head nodding and a close mirroring in the direction of eye-gaze suggested that both parties were active participants in the conversation
                Irrespective of the arm of the trial, both patients' and GPs' behaviour showed that they were reciprocally engaged in these consultations. However, even in consultations aimed at promoting shared decision-making, GPs' were verbally dominant, and they worked primarily as information providers for patients. In addition, computer-based decision aids significantly prolonged the consultations, particularly the later phases. These data suggest that decision aids may not lead to more 'sharing' in treatment decision-making and that, in their current form, they may take too long to negotiate for use in routine primary care. Recent models of physician-patient communication emphasize information exchange in promoting partnership. Although considerable attention has been given to physicians' information exchange, little research has examined patients' communication contributions. The purpose of this research was to test the effectiveness of a training booklet designed to enhance patients' communication skills in information exchange. A nested design was used, such that 25 physicians each saw six patients, two patients in each of three communication skills interventions (i.e. trained, informed, control). The dependent variables included several discourse categories designed to assess patients' information seeking, provision, and verifying. Results indicate that trained patients engaged in more effective and efficient information seeking, provided physicians with more detailed information about their medical condition, and used more summarizing utterances to verify information they received from physicians. Additionally, dyads consisting of trained patients demonstrated a more patient-controlled style of communication than did dyads consisting of informed or untrained patients. To address provider, payer, and patient concerns about the use of online communication in healthcare settings by performing a randomized controlled trial of a Web-based patient-provider communication tool in primary care.
                Forty-one staff physicians and 91 residents in 4 primary care centers were randomized to a Web-based online communication system. Patients of intervention physicians were encouraged to communicate via the system about health issues, scheduling, prescription renewals, referrals, and billing. Data collected included patient Web use, e-mail use, telephone calls, visit distribution, and physician and patient attitudes toward and satisfaction with communication.
                One thousand thirty-eight patients sent 2238 messages during the 40-week study. Half of the messages were directly related to a patient's health; half were administrative. Patient Web use peaked at 8.5 weekly messages per 100 scheduled visits. Patient e-mail and telephone volume remained similar across groups. Intervention physicians reported more positive attitudes toward Web-based communication than control physicians (mean Web benefits scale score, 4.0 vs 1.1; P = .008), but there were no between-group differences in attitudes toward communication in general. Patients and physicians reported differential preferences for the use of online communication based on problem complexity and sensitivity.
                Web-based messaging was lower than expected because of patient-related factors and limitations of the technology. Patients, physicians, and staff had positive attitudes toward online communication. There was no detectable difference in communication volume between study groups, but more sensitive measures of work burden need to be developed and evaluated. To determine whether standardized instructions enhance communication of discharge information, we provided 197 parents of children in whom otitis media was diagnosed with one of three types of instruction at the time of discharge from a pediatric emergency department: (1) instruction by individual housestaff and medical students after consultation with an attending physician (control group); (2) standardized verbal instructions given by housestaff and students trained in their use (verbal group); or (3) the same instructions given to the verbal group, together with a type-written copy of the information to take home (verbal + written group). Prior to leaving the emergency department and, again, by phone, 1 and 3 days later, parents were questioned concerning the prescribed medication's name, dose, frequency, and duration of administration (medication data), three signs of improvement, and eight signs indicating the need for medical advice (worrisome signs). The mean percentage of correct responses per parent in each group was computed for each information category. Both at exit interview and at follow-up, parents receiving either form of standardized instructions showed significantly greater knowledge of information related to their child's illness than did controls. Information regarding medication data was more likely to be communicated to parents in all groups than were signs of improvement or worrisome signs. The addition of written instructions to standardized verbal instructions did not improve parental recall of discharge information. Although patients with cancer are often accompanied by a relative during medical interviews, to the authors' knowledge little is known regarding the efficacy of communication skills training programs on physicians' communication skills in this context. The objective of the current study was to assess the efficacy of 6 consolidation workshops, 3 hours in length, that were conducted after a 2.5-day basic training program.
                After attending the basic training program, physicians were assigned randomly to consolidation workshops or to a waiting list. Training efficacy was assessed through simulated and actual interviews that were recorded on an audio tape at baseline, after consolidation workshops for the consolidation-workshops group, and 5 months after the end of basic training for the waiting-list group. Communication skills were assessed according to the Cancer Research Campaign Workshop Evaluation Manual. Patients' and relatives' perceptions of and satisfaction with physicians' communication performance were assessed using a 15-item questionnaire.
                Sixty-two physicians completed the training program. Compared with physicians who participated to the basic training program, when addressing the patient, physicians who were randomized to the consolidation workshops used more open, open directive, and screening questions (P = 0.011 in simulated patient interviews and P = 0.005 in actual patient interviews) and elicited and clarified psychologic concerns more often (P = 0.006 in simulated patient interviews and P < 0.001 in actual patient interviews). When they addressed the relative, physicians who were randomized to the consolidation workshops gave less premature information (P = 0.032 in simulated patient interviews and P < 0.001 in actual patient interviews). When they addressed the patient and the relative simultaneously, physicians who were randomized to the consolidation workshops used more empathy, educated guesses, alerting to reality, confronting, negotiating, and summarizing (P = 0.003 in simulated patient interviews and P = 0.024 in actual patient interviews). Patients, but not relatives, who interacted with physicians in the consolidation-workshops group were more satisfied globally with the interviews (P = 0.022).
                Six 3-hour consolidation workshops resulted in improved communication skills addressed to patients and to relatives. The current results showed that the transfer of skills addressing relatives' concerns remained limited and that consolidation workshops should focus even more systematically on the practice of three-person interviews. A randomized pre- and post-test control group design was conducted in 12 oncology wards to investigate the effectiveness of an intervention, existing of a communication skills training with web-enabled video feedback and a Question Prompt Sheet (QPS), which aimed to improve patient education to older cancer patients (≥65 years). The effects were studied by analyzing questionnaires and video recordings of patient education sessions preceding chemotherapy with 210 different patients. Patients' recall of information was the primary outcome of the study. Recall was checked against the actual communication in the video-recordings. Moreover, communication skills were assessed by observing the extent to which nurses implemented 67 communication aspects, categorized in seven dimensions, using the QUOTE(chemo). Experimental nurses demonstrated a significant intervention effect on communicating realistic expectations. Within-group improvements were measured in the experimental group for tailored communication, affective communication and interpersonal communication. Although the use of a QPS significantly increased question asking, only limited results were found on older patients' recall scores. The overall proportion recall of recommendations showed a marginally significant pre-/post-change in proportion recall in favour of the experimental group and there was a significant pre-/post-change in two out of six sub-categories. The results indicate that nurses' communication skills can be improved by communication skills training. More research is needed to understand the difficult relationship between patient-provider communication and recall of information.
                Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. E-mail communication between patients and their providers has diffused slowly in clinical practice. To address concerns about the use of this technology, we performed a randomized controlled trial of a triage-based e-mail system in primary care. DESIGN AND PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Physicians in 2 university-affiliated primary care centers were randomized to a triage-based e-mail system promoted to their patients. E-mails from patients of intervention physicians were routed to a central account and parsed to the appropriate staff for response. Control group physicians and their patients did not have access to the system. We collected information on patient e-mail use, phone calls, and visit distribution by physician over the 10 months and performed physician and patient surveys to examine attitudes about communication.
                E-mail volume was greater for intervention versus control physicians (46 weekly e-mails per 100 scheduled visits vs 9 in the control group at the study midpoint; P <.01) but there were no between-group differences in phone volume (67 weekly phone calls per 100 scheduled visits vs 55 in the control group; P =.45) or rates of patient no-shows (5% in both groups; P =.77). Intervention physicians reported more favorable attitudes toward electronic communication than did control physicians but there were no differences in attitudes toward patient or staff communication in general. There were few between-group differences in patient attitudes toward electronic communication or communication in general.
                E-mail generated through a triage-based system did not appear to substitute for phone communication or to reduce visit no-shows in a primary care setting. Physicians' attitudes toward electronic communication were improved, but physicians' and patients' attitudes toward general communication did not change. Growth of e-mail communication in primary care settings may not improve the efficiency of clinical care. To compare the effects of computerized and paper-based versions of guidelines on recently qualified physicians' consultation practices.
                Two arm cluster randomized controlled trial. Physicians were randomized to receive computerized or textbook-based versions of the same guidelines for a 4-week study period. Physicians' compliance with guideline recommendations about laboratory, radiological, physical and other examinations, procedures, nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatments, physiotherapy, and referrals were measured by case note review.
                There were 139 recently qualified physicians working in 96 primary healthcare centers in Finland who participated in the study. Data on 4,633 patient encounters were abstracted, of which 3,484 were suitable for further analysis. Physicians' compliance with guidelines was high (over 80% for use of laboratory, radiology, physical examinations, and referrals). There were no significant differences in physicians' consultation practices in any of the measured outcomes between the computerized and textbook group.
                Guidelines are a useful source of information for recently qualified physicians working in primary care. However, the method of presentation of the guidelines (electronic or paper) does not have an effect on guideline use or their impact on decisions. Other factors should be considered when choosing the method of presentation of guidelines, such as information-seeking time, ease of use during the consultation, ability to update, production costs, and the physician's own preferences.
This review recommends the use of both verbal and written health information when communicating about care issues with patients and/or significant others on discharge from hospital to home. The combination of verbal and written health information enables the provision of standardised care information to patients and/or significant others, which appears to improve knowledge and satisfaction. Many of our objectives could not be addressed in this review due to lack of trials which met the review's inclusion criteria. There is therefore scope for future research to investigate the effects of providing verbal and written health information on readmission rates, recovery time, complication rates, costs of health care, consumers' confidence level, stress and anxiety and adherence to recommended treatment and staff training in the delivery of verbal and written information. In addition there are other factors which impact on the effectiveness of information provided that were not considered in this review but are worthy of a separate systematic review, such as the impact of patient and/or significant others being involved in the development of the written information and cultural issues around development and provision of information. Due to concerns about literacy levels for some population groups, other systematic reviews should also focus on other modes of delivery of information besides the written format.