Richard T Griffey1, Nicole Shin2, Solita Jones3, Nnenna Aginam3, Maureen Gross1, Yonitte Kinsella1, Jennifer A Williams4, Christopher R Carpenter1, Melody Goodman5, Kimberly A Kaphingst5. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Barnes Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, MO, USA ; Division of Emergency Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA ; Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 2. Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 3. Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN, USA. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Barnes Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, MO, USA. 5. Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis MO, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recommended as a 'universal precaution' for improving provider-patient communication, teach-back has a limited evidence base. Discharge from the emergency department (ED) to home is an important high-risk transition of care with potential for miscommunication of critical information. We examined whether teach-back improves: comprehension and perceived comprehension of discharge instructions and satisfaction among patients with limited health literacy (LHL) in the ED. METHODS: We performed a randomized, controlled study among adult patients with LHL, to teach-back or standard discharge instructions. Patients completed an audio-recorded structured interview evaluating comprehension and perceived comprehension of (1) diagnosis, (2) ED course, (3) post-ED care, and (4) reasons to return and satisfaction using four Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems questions. Concordance with the medical record was rated using a five-level scale. We analyzed differences between groups using multivariable ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: Patients randomized to receive teach-back had higher comprehension of post-ED care areas: post-ED medication (P < 0.02), self-care (P < 0.03), and follow-up instructions (P < 0.0001), but no change in patient satisfaction or perceived comprehension. CONCLUSION: Teach-back appears to improve comprehension of post-ED care instructions but not satisfaction or perceived comprehension. Our data from a randomized, controlled study support the effectiveness of teach-back in a busy clinical setting. Further research is needed to test the utility and feasibility of teach-back for routine use including its impacts on distal outcomes.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Recommended as a 'universal precaution' for improving provider-patient communication, teach-back has a limited evidence base. Discharge from the emergency department (ED) to home is an important high-risk transition of care with potential for miscommunication of critical information. We examined whether teach-back improves: comprehension and perceived comprehension of discharge instructions and satisfaction among patients with limited health literacy (LHL) in the ED. METHODS: We performed a randomized, controlled study among adult patients with LHL, to teach-back or standard discharge instructions. Patients completed an audio-recorded structured interview evaluating comprehension and perceived comprehension of (1) diagnosis, (2) ED course, (3) post-ED care, and (4) reasons to return and satisfaction using four Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems questions. Concordance with the medical record was rated using a five-level scale. We analyzed differences between groups using multivariable ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS:Patients randomized to receive teach-back had higher comprehension of post-ED care areas: post-ED medication (P < 0.02), self-care (P < 0.03), and follow-up instructions (P < 0.0001), but no change in patient satisfaction or perceived comprehension. CONCLUSION: Teach-back appears to improve comprehension of post-ED care instructions but not satisfaction or perceived comprehension. Our data from a randomized, controlled study support the effectiveness of teach-back in a busy clinical setting. Further research is needed to test the utility and feasibility of teach-back for routine use including its impacts on distal outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Emergency department; Health literacy; Intervention studies; Physician–patient relations; Teach-back communication
Authors: Scot H Simpson; Dean T Eurich; Sumit R Majumdar; Rajdeep S Padwal; Ross T Tsuyuki; Janice Varney; Jeffrey A Johnson Journal: BMJ Date: 2006-06-21
Authors: Nancy D Berkman; Stacey L Sheridan; Katrina E Donahue; David J Halpern; Karen Crotty Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Byron J Powell; J Curtis McMillen; Enola K Proctor; Christopher R Carpenter; Richard T Griffey; Alicia C Bunger; Joseph E Glass; Jennifer L York Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2011-12-26 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Darren A DeWalt; Kimberly A Broucksou; Victoria Hawk; Cindy Brach; Ashley Hink; Rima Rudd; Leigh Callahan Journal: Nurs Outlook Date: 2011 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Candace McNaughton; Kenneth A Wallston; Russell L Rothman; David E Marcovitz; Alan B Storrow Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: S Nicole Hastings; Eugene Z Oddone; Gerda Fillenbaum; Richard J Sloane; Kenneth E Schmader Journal: Med Care Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: S Nicole Hastings; Kenneth E Schmader; Richard J Sloane; Morris Weinberger; Kenneth C Goldberg; Eugene Z Oddone Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-09-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Dean Schillinger; John Piette; Kevin Grumbach; Frances Wang; Clifford Wilson; Carolyn Daher; Krishelle Leong-Grotz; Cesar Castro; Andrew B Bindman Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2003-01-13
Authors: Richard T Griffey; Candace D McNaughton; Danielle M McCarthy; Erica Shelton; Ana Castaneda-Guarderas; Angela Young-Brinn; Donna Fowler; Corita Grudszen Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2016-11-25 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Marie C Haverfield; Aaron Tierney; Rachel Schwartz; Michelle B Bass; Cati Brown-Johnson; Dani L Zionts; Nadia Safaeinili; Meredith Fischer; Jonathan G Shaw; Sonoo Thadaney; Gabriella Piccininni; Karl A Lorenz; Steven M Asch; Abraham Verghese; Donna M Zulman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Young-Rock Hong; Michelle Cardel; Ryan Suk; Ivana A Vaughn; Ashish A Deshmukh; Carla L Fisher; Gregory Pavela; Kalyani Sonawane Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-08-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Alexander F Glick; Jonathan S Farkas; Rebecca E Rosenberg; Alan L Mendelsohn; Suzy Tomopoulos; Arthur H Fierman; Benard P Dreyer; Michael Migotsky; Jennifer Melgar; H Shonna Yin Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2020-01-16 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Alisa Khan; Stephannie L Furtak; Patrice Melvin; Jayne E Rogers; Mark A Schuster; Christopher P Landrigan Journal: Hosp Pediatr Date: 2017-08-02
Authors: Ivy Benjenk; Eva H DuGoff; Gwen C Jacobsohn; Nia Cayenne; Courtney M C Jones; Thomas V Caprio; Jeremy T Cushman; Rebecca K Green; Amy J H Kind; Michael Lohmeier; Ranran Mi; Manish N Shah Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 3.451