Keiki Hinami1,2, Ahmad Alkhalil3, Sonam Chouksey3, Jacquelin Chua3, William E Trick3,4. 1. Department of Medicine, John Stroger Hospital, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. khinami@cookcountyhhs.org. 2. Collaborative Research Unit, Cook County Health and Hospitals System, Chicago, IL, USA. khinami@cookcountyhhs.org. 3. Department of Medicine, John Stroger Hospital, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. 4. Collaborative Research Unit, Cook County Health and Hospitals System, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Standardized measures of physical symptoms predict mortality and healthcare utilization, but clinicians remain uncertain about how to apply them in routine clinical care. Recognizing the tendency for physician documentations to routinely underestimate symptom burden, we assessed whether or not severity was an important dimension of symptom assessments that may determine their usefulness in clinical encounters. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using data from audio computer-assisted self-interviews augmented by chart review of patients from a primary care clinic of an urban health system. RESULTS: We sampled 145 patients who completed the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS) short form-physical symptom severity measurement-before their primary care visit. Most were women (60 %), and non-Hispanic black (59 %), and many responded in Spanish (19 %). All but three reported > 1 symptom. Overall, 79 % of elicited symptoms were not documented in physician notes from the same day. Severe symptoms were more likely to be documented [MSAS mean (95 % confidence interval): documented 2.2 (1.9, 2.4) vs. undocumented 1.8 (1.7, 1.9)]. CONCLUSION: Documentations reflect usual patient-clinician communications that prioritize severe symptoms, while standardized instruments target their comprehensive assessments. Among the many validated instruments, those eliciting the severity of physical symptoms may simultaneously help clinicians with prioritization and risk assessments.
PURPOSE: Standardized measures of physical symptoms predict mortality and healthcare utilization, but clinicians remain uncertain about how to apply them in routine clinical care. Recognizing the tendency for physician documentations to routinely underestimate symptom burden, we assessed whether or not severity was an important dimension of symptom assessments that may determine their usefulness in clinical encounters. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using data from audio computer-assisted self-interviews augmented by chart review of patients from a primary care clinic of an urban health system. RESULTS: We sampled 145 patients who completed the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS) short form-physical symptom severity measurement-before their primary care visit. Most were women (60 %), and non-Hispanic black (59 %), and many responded in Spanish (19 %). All but three reported > 1 symptom. Overall, 79 % of elicited symptoms were not documented in physician notes from the same day. Severe symptoms were more likely to be documented [MSAS mean (95 % confidence interval): documented 2.2 (1.9, 2.4) vs. undocumented 1.8 (1.7, 1.9)]. CONCLUSION: Documentations reflect usual patient-clinician communications that prioritize severe symptoms, while standardized instruments target their comprehensive assessments. Among the many validated instruments, those eliciting the severity of physical symptoms may simultaneously help clinicians with prioritization and risk assessments.
Entities:
Keywords:
Audio computer-assisted self-interview technology; Patient reported outcomes; Primary care; Quality of life
Authors: Allison L Diamant; Ron D Hays; Leo S Morales; Wesley Ford; Daphne Calmes; Steven Asch; Naihua Duan; Eve Fielder; Sehyun Kim; Jonathan Fielding; Gerald Sumner; Martin F Shapiro; David Hayes-Bautista; Lillian Gelberg Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Christopher A Harle; Alyson Listhaus; Constanza M Covarrubias; Siegfried Of Schmidt; Sean Mackey; Peter J Carek; Roger B Fillingim; Robert W Hurley Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Neil K Aaronson; Ali K Choucair; Thomas E Elliott; Joanne Greenhalgh; Michele Y Halyard; Rachel Hess; Deborah M Miller; Bryce B Reeve; Maria Santana Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Michael C Sha; Christopher M Callahan; Steven R Counsell; Glenda R Westmoreland; Timothy E Stump; Kurt Kroenke Journal: Am J Med Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Keiki Hinami; Jennifer Smith; Catherine D Deamant; Romina Kee; Diana Garcia; William E Trick Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-12-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: R K Portenoy; H T Thaler; A B Kornblith; J M Lepore; H Friedlander-Klar; E Kiyasu; K Sobel; N Coyle; N Kemeny; L Norton Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1994 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Marie-Therése Crafoord; Maria Fjell; Kay Sundberg; Marie Nilsson; Ann Langius-Eklöf Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-08-10 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Chris Feudtner; Russell Nye; Douglas L Hill; Matt Hall; Pam Hinds; Emily E Johnston; Sarah Friebert; Ross Hays; Tammy I Kang; Joanne Wolfe Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-08-02