Noah H Crampton1, Shmuel Reis2, Aviv Shachak3. 1. Department of Family and Community Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 2. Faculty of Medicine in the Galilee, Bar-Ilan University, Safed, Israel. 3. Institute of Health Policy, Management & Evaluation (Dalla Lana School of Public Health) and Faculty of Information, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada aviv.shachak@utoronto.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patient-clinician communication has been associated with increased patient satisfaction, trust in the clinician, adherence to prescribed therapy, and various health outcomes. The impact of health information technology (HIT) on the clinical encounter in general and patient-clinician communication in particular is a growing concern. The purpose of this study was to review the current literature on HIT use during the clinical encounter to update best practices and inform the continuous development of HIT policies and educational interventions. METHODS: We conducted a literature search of four databases. After removing duplicates, reviewing titles and abstracts, performing a full-text review, and snowballing from references and citations, 51 articles were included in the analysis. We employed a qualitative thematic analysis to compare and contrast the findings across studies. RESULTS: Our analysis revealed that the use of HIT affects consultations in complex ways, impacting eye contact and gaze, information sharing, building relationships, and pauses in the conversation. Whether these impacts are positive or negative largely depends on the combination of consultation room layout, patient and clinician styles of interaction with HIT as well as each other, and the strategies and techniques employed by clinicians to integrate HIT into consultations. DISCUSSION: The in-depth insights into the impact of HIT on the clinical encounter, especially the strategies and techniques employed by clinicians to adapt to using HIT in consultations, can inform policies, educational interventions, and research. CONCLUSION: In contrast to the common negative views of HIT, it affects the clinical encounter in multiple ways. By applying identified strategies and best practices, HIT can support patient-clinician interactions rather than interfering with them.
OBJECTIVE:Patient-clinician communication has been associated with increased patient satisfaction, trust in the clinician, adherence to prescribed therapy, and various health outcomes. The impact of health information technology (HIT) on the clinical encounter in general and patient-clinician communication in particular is a growing concern. The purpose of this study was to review the current literature on HIT use during the clinical encounter to update best practices and inform the continuous development of HIT policies and educational interventions. METHODS: We conducted a literature search of four databases. After removing duplicates, reviewing titles and abstracts, performing a full-text review, and snowballing from references and citations, 51 articles were included in the analysis. We employed a qualitative thematic analysis to compare and contrast the findings across studies. RESULTS: Our analysis revealed that the use of HIT affects consultations in complex ways, impacting eye contact and gaze, information sharing, building relationships, and pauses in the conversation. Whether these impacts are positive or negative largely depends on the combination of consultation room layout, patient and clinician styles of interaction with HIT as well as each other, and the strategies and techniques employed by clinicians to integrate HIT into consultations. DISCUSSION: The in-depth insights into the impact of HIT on the clinical encounter, especially the strategies and techniques employed by clinicians to adapt to using HIT in consultations, can inform policies, educational interventions, and research. CONCLUSION: In contrast to the common negative views of HIT, it affects the clinical encounter in multiple ways. By applying identified strategies and best practices, HIT can support patient-clinician interactions rather than interfering with them.
Authors: Renée R Shield; Roberta E Goldman; David A Anthony; Nina Wang; Richard J Doyle; Jeffrey Borkan Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Mark W Friedberg; Peggy G Chen; Kristin R Van Busum; Frances Aunon; Chau Pham; John Caloyeras; Soeren Mattke; Emma Pitchforth; Denise D Quigley; Robert H Brook; F Jay Crosson; Michael Tutty Journal: Rand Health Q Date: 2014-12-01
Authors: Neda Ratanawongsa; Jennifer L Barton; Dean Schillinger; Edward H Yelin; Jennifer E Hettema; Paula J Lum Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2013-11
Authors: Paul Rosen; Steven J Spalding; Michael J Hannon; Robert M Boudreau; C Kent Kwoh Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2011-05-27 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Jason J Saleem; Dustin T Weiler; Tyler Satterly; Maury A Nussbaum; Neale R Chumbler; Gary M Fischer; Shakaib U Rehman Journal: Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet Date: 2018-09-25