Crystal W Cené1, Beth Haymore2, Jeffrey P Laux3, Feng-Chang Lin3, Dana Carthron4, Debra Roter5, Lisa A Cooper6, Patricia P Chang7, Brian C Jensen7, Paula F Miller8, Giselle Corbie-Smith9. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill School of Medicine, NC, USA; Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Electronic address: crystal_cene@med.unc.edu. 2. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. North Carolina Translational & Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Department of Biostatistics, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. College of Nursing, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. 5. Department of Health Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 7. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 8. Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 9. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Center for Health Equity Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency, roles, and utility of family companion involvement in the care of patients with Heart Failure (HF) care and to examine the association between audiotaped patient, companion, and provider communication behaviors. METHODS: We collected survey data and audiotaped a single medical visit for 93 HF patients (36 brought a companion into the examination room) and their cardiology provider. Communication data was analyzed using the Roter Interaction Analysis System. RESULTS: There were 32% more positive rapport-building statements (p<0.01) and almost three times as many social rapport-building statements (p<0.01) from patients and companions in accompanied visits versus unaccompanied patient visits. There were less psychosocial information giving statements in accompanied visits compared to unaccompanied patient visits (p<0.01.) Providers made 25% more biomedical information giving statements (p=0.04) and almost three times more social rapport-building statements (p<0.01) in accompanied visits. Providers asked fewer biomedical and psychosocial questions in accompanied versus unaccompanied visits. Providers made 16% fewer partnership-building statements in accompanied versus unaccompanied visits (p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are mixed regarding the benefits of accompaniment for facilitating patient-provider communication based on survey and audiotaped data. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Strategies to enhance engagement during visits, such as pre-visit question prompt lists, may be beneficial.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency, roles, and utility of family companion involvement in the care of patients with Heart Failure (HF) care and to examine the association between audiotaped patient, companion, and provider communication behaviors. METHODS: We collected survey data and audiotaped a single medical visit for 93 HF patients (36 brought a companion into the examination room) and their cardiology provider. Communication data was analyzed using the Roter Interaction Analysis System. RESULTS: There were 32% more positive rapport-building statements (p<0.01) and almost three times as many social rapport-building statements (p<0.01) from patients and companions in accompanied visits versus unaccompanied patient visits. There were less psychosocial information giving statements in accompanied visits compared to unaccompanied patient visits (p<0.01.) Providers made 25% more biomedical information giving statements (p=0.04) and almost three times more social rapport-building statements (p<0.01) in accompanied visits. Providers asked fewer biomedical and psychosocial questions in accompanied versus unaccompanied visits. Providers made 16% fewer partnership-building statements in accompanied versus unaccompanied visits (p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are mixed regarding the benefits of accompaniment for facilitating patient-provider communication based on survey and audiotaped data. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Strategies to enhance engagement during visits, such as pre-visit question prompt lists, may be beneficial.
Authors: Jennifer L Wolff; Cynthia M Boyd; Laura N Gitlin; Martha L Bruce; Debra L Roter Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Lisa M Schilling; Lisa Scatena; John F Steiner; Gail A Albertson; C T Lin; Lisa Cyran; Lindsay Ware; Robert J Anderson Journal: J Fam Pract Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 0.493
Authors: Amy K Otto; Maija Reblin; Felicity W K Harper; Lauren M Hamel; Tanina F Moore; Lee Ellington; Susan Eggly Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-01-07