Jennifer L Wolff1, Debra L Roter, Jeremy Barron, Cynthia M Boyd, Bruce Leff, Thomas E Finucane, Joseph J Gallo, Peter V Rabins, David L Roth, Laura N Gitlin. 1. Department of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Health, Behavior, and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland; Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology and Department of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the acceptability of a pre-consultation checklist for older adults who attend medical visits with an unpaid companion and to evaluate its effects on visit communication. DESIGN: Randomized controlled pilot study. SETTING:Academic geriatrics ambulatory clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two individuals aged 65 and older and their unpaid companions. INTERVENTION: A self-administered checklist was compared with usual care. The checklist was designed to elicit and align patient and companion perspectives regarding health concerns to discuss with the doctor and stimulate discussion about the companion's role in the visit. PRIMARY OUTCOME: ratio of patient-centered communication, coded from visit audiotapes. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: checklist acceptability; visit duration; patient-companion verbal activity; patient- and physician-reported perspectives of the visit. RESULTS:All intervention patients and companions (n = 17) completed the checklist, and all participants (n = 32 dyads) completed the study. Patients and companions stated that the checklist was easy to complete (88%) and useful (91%), and they uniformly (100%) recommended it to other patients. Communication was significantly more patient-centered in intervention group visits (ratio of 1.22 vs 0.71; P = .03). Visit duration (35.0 and 30.6 minutes; P = .34) and percentage of total verbal activity contributed by patients and companions (58.2% and 56.3% of visit statements; P = .50) were comparable in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Physicians were more likely to indicate that intervention companions "helped them provide good care to the patient" (94% vs 60%; P = .02). Intervention patients were more likely to indicate that they "better understood their doctor's advice and explanations" because their companion was present (82% vs 47%; P = .03). CONCLUSION: A checklist to elicit and align perspectives of older adults and their companions resulted in enhanced patient-centered medical visit communication.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To determine the acceptability of a pre-consultation checklist for older adults who attend medical visits with an unpaid companion and to evaluate its effects on visit communication. DESIGN: Randomized controlled pilot study. SETTING: Academic geriatrics ambulatory clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two individuals aged 65 and older and their unpaid companions. INTERVENTION: A self-administered checklist was compared with usual care. The checklist was designed to elicit and align patient and companion perspectives regarding health concerns to discuss with the doctor and stimulate discussion about the companion's role in the visit. PRIMARY OUTCOME: ratio of patient-centered communication, coded from visit audiotapes. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: checklist acceptability; visit duration; patient-companion verbal activity; patient- and physician-reported perspectives of the visit. RESULTS: All intervention patients and companions (n = 17) completed the checklist, and all participants (n = 32 dyads) completed the study. Patients and companions stated that the checklist was easy to complete (88%) and useful (91%), and they uniformly (100%) recommended it to other patients. Communication was significantly more patient-centered in intervention group visits (ratio of 1.22 vs 0.71; P = .03). Visit duration (35.0 and 30.6 minutes; P = .34) and percentage of total verbal activity contributed by patients and companions (58.2% and 56.3% of visit statements; P = .50) were comparable in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Physicians were more likely to indicate that intervention companions "helped them provide good care to the patient" (94% vs 60%; P = .02). Intervention patients were more likely to indicate that they "better understood their doctor's advice and explanations" because their companion was present (82% vs 47%; P = .03). CONCLUSION: A checklist to elicit and align perspectives of older adults and their companions resulted in enhanced patient-centered medical visit communication.
Authors: Nancy D Berkman; Stacey L Sheridan; Katrina E Donahue; David J Halpern; Anthony Viera; Karen Crotty; Audrey Holland; Michelle Brasure; Kathleen N Lohr; Elizabeth Harden; Elizabeth Tant; Ina Wallace; Meera Viswanathan Journal: Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) Date: 2011-03
Authors: Christopher M Callahan; Frederick W Unverzagt; Siu L Hui; Anthony J Perkins; Hugh C Hendrie Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Simon Smith; Muhammad Arsyad Bin Nordin; Tom Hinchy; Patrick Henn; Colm M P O'Tuathaigh Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2020-07-26 Impact factor: 1.710
Authors: Jennifer L Wolff; Yue Guan; Cynthia M Boyd; Judith Vick; Halima Amjad; David L Roth; Laura N Gitlin; Debra L Roter Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-10-25
Authors: Crystal W Cené; Beth Haymore; Jeffrey P Laux; Feng-Chang Lin; Dana Carthron; Debra Roter; Lisa A Cooper; Patricia P Chang; Brian C Jensen; Paula F Miller; Giselle Corbie-Smith Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-09-03
Authors: Orla C Sheehan; Hadi Kharrazi; Kimberly J Carl; Bruce Leff; Jennifer L Wolff; David L Roth; Jennifer Gabbard; Cynthia M Boyd Journal: Home Healthc Now Date: 2018 Jan/Feb
Authors: Jennifer L Wolff; Debra L Roter; Cynthia M Boyd; David L Roth; Diane M Echavarria; Jennifer Aufill; Judith B Vick; Laura N Gitlin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Yue Guan; Debra L Roter; Lori H Erby; Jennifer L Wolff; Laura N Gitlin; J Scott Roberts; Robert C Green; Kurt D Christensen Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2018
Authors: Judith B Vick; Halima Amjad; Katherine C Smith; Cynthia M Boyd; Laura N Gitlin; David L Roth; Debra L Roter; Jennifer L Wolff Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Ariel R Green; Amy Jenkins; Frederick A Masoudi; David J Magid; Jean S Kutner; Bruce Leff; Daniel D Matlock Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 1.976