OBJECTIVE: Cognitive impairment poses communication challenges in primary care. Although family "companions" commonly attend primary care visits of older adults with cognitive impairment, little is known about how their involvement affects communication. Therefore, we sought to understand how companion involvement affects the quality of primary care visit communication for older adults with cognitive impairment. METHODS: Cross-sectional, descriptive qualitative study participants were as follows: (1) English-speaking adults age 65 or older with mild, moderate, or severe cognitive impairment; (2) family members or other unpaid companions who accompany older adults to primary care visits; and (3) primary care clinicians. Twenty semi-structured and in-depth qualitative interviews of older adults and their companions (N = 20 dyads) and two focus groups (N = 10 primary care clinicians) were conducted. Interviews and focus groups were transcribed and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Family companions commonly facilitate communication by advocating for patients, ensuring the accuracy of information exchange and understanding, and preserving rapport. Significant communication challenges were also identified, including patient and companion role ambiguity, competing visit agendas, and primary care clinician confusion regarding the most accurate source of information. Patients, companions, and clinicians each identified strategies to improve communication, chief among them being to identify, differentiate, and respect both patient and companion priorities and perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Family companions actively participate in primary care visits of older adults with cognitive impairment in ways that promote and inhibit effective communication. Findings suggest the need for strategies that more effectively and purposefully involve family in the care of primary care patients with cognitive impairment.
OBJECTIVE:Cognitive impairment poses communication challenges in primary care. Although family "companions" commonly attend primary care visits of older adults with cognitive impairment, little is known about how their involvement affects communication. Therefore, we sought to understand how companion involvement affects the quality of primary care visit communication for older adults with cognitive impairment. METHODS: Cross-sectional, descriptive qualitative study participants were as follows: (1) English-speaking adults age 65 or older with mild, moderate, or severe cognitive impairment; (2) family members or other unpaid companions who accompany older adults to primary care visits; and (3) primary care clinicians. Twenty semi-structured and in-depth qualitative interviews of older adults and their companions (N = 20 dyads) and two focus groups (N = 10 primary care clinicians) were conducted. Interviews and focus groups were transcribed and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Family companions commonly facilitate communication by advocating for patients, ensuring the accuracy of information exchange and understanding, and preserving rapport. Significant communication challenges were also identified, including patient and companion role ambiguity, competing visit agendas, and primary care clinician confusion regarding the most accurate source of information. Patients, companions, and clinicians each identified strategies to improve communication, chief among them being to identify, differentiate, and respect both patient and companion priorities and perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Family companions actively participate in primary care visits of older adults with cognitive impairment in ways that promote and inhibit effective communication. Findings suggest the need for strategies that more effectively and purposefully involve family in the care of primary care patients with cognitive impairment.
Authors: Andrea Bradford; Mark E Kunik; Paul Schulz; Susan P Williams; Hardeep Singh Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2009 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Ladson Hinton; Carol E Franz; Geetha Reddy; Yvette Flores; Richard L Kravitz; Judith C Barker Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-09-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Marina Serper; Rachel E Patzer; Laura M Curtis; Samuel G Smith; Rachel O'Conor; David W Baker; Michael S Wolf Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: John D Piette; Dana Striplin; Nicolle Marinec; Jenny Chen; Ranak B Trivedi; David C Aron; Lawrence Fisher; James E Aikens Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Celine Latulipe; Syeda Fatema Mazumder; Rachel K W Wilson; Jennifer W Talton; Alain G Bertoni; Sara A Quandt; Thomas A Arcury; David P Miller Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Catherine Riffin; Jennifer L Wolff; Matthew Estill; Sheela Prabhu; Karl A Pillemer Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 5.562
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: Judith B Vick; Katherine A Ornstein; Sarah L Szanton; Sydney M Dy; Jennifer L Wolff Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2018-11-17 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Ariel R Green; Jennifer L Wolff; Diane M Echavarria; Malcolm Chapman; Annie Phung; Devon Smith; Cynthia M Boyd Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Deborah A Levine; Andrzej T Galecki; Brenda L Plassman; Angela Fagerlin; Lauren P Wallner; Kenneth M Langa; Rachael T Whitney; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Lewis B Morgenstern; Bailey K Reale; Emilie M Blair; Bruno Giordani; Kathleen Anne Welsh-Bohmer; Mohammed U Kabeto; Darin B Zahuranec Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 6.473