Courtney R Lyles1,2, Reena Gupta1, Lina Tieu3, Alicia Fernandez1,2. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 2. Center for Vulnerable Populations, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Department of Health Policy and Management, Jonathan and Karin Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After-visit summary (AVS) documents presenting key information from each medical encounter have become standard in the USA due to federal health care reform. Little is known about how they are used or whether they improve patient care. METHODS: First, we completed a literature review and described the totality of the literature on AVS by article type and major outcome measures. Next, we used reputational sampling from large-scale US studies on primary care to identify and interview nine stakeholders on their perceptions of AVS across high-performing primary care practices. Interviews were transcribed and coded for AVS use in practice, perceptions of the best/worst features and recommendations for improving AVS utility in routine care. RESULTS: The literature review resulted in 17 studies; patients reported higher perceived value of AVS compared with providers, despite poor recall of specific AVS content and varied post-visit use. In key informant interviews, key informants expressed enthusiasm for the potential of using AVS to reinforce key information with patients, especially if AVS were customizable. Despite this potential, key informants found that AVS included incorrect information and did not feel that patients or their practices were using AVS to enhance care. CONCLUSIONS: There is a gap between the potential of AVS and how providers and patients are using it in routine care. Suggestions for improved use of AVS include increasing customization, establishing care team responsibilities and workflows and ensuring patients with communication barriers have dedicated support to review AVS during visits.
BACKGROUND: After-visit summary (AVS) documents presenting key information from each medical encounter have become standard in the USA due to federal health care reform. Little is known about how they are used or whether they improve patient care. METHODS: First, we completed a literature review and described the totality of the literature on AVS by article type and major outcome measures. Next, we used reputational sampling from large-scale US studies on primary care to identify and interview nine stakeholders on their perceptions of AVS across high-performing primary care practices. Interviews were transcribed and coded for AVS use in practice, perceptions of the best/worst features and recommendations for improving AVS utility in routine care. RESULTS: The literature review resulted in 17 studies; patients reported higher perceived value of AVS compared with providers, despite poor recall of specific AVS content and varied post-visit use. In key informant interviews, key informants expressed enthusiasm for the potential of using AVS to reinforce key information with patients, especially if AVS were customizable. Despite this potential, key informants found that AVS included incorrect information and did not feel that patients or their practices were using AVS to enhance care. CONCLUSIONS: There is a gap between the potential of AVS and how providers and patients are using it in routine care. Suggestions for improved use of AVS include increasing customization, establishing care team responsibilities and workflows and ensuring patients with communication barriers have dedicated support to review AVS during visits.