Mary C Barks1, Emma A Schindler2, Peter A Ubel3, Megan G Jiao4, Kathryn I Pollak5, Hanna E Huffstetler4, Monica E Lemmon6. 1. Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: mary.barks@duke.edu. 2. Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 4. Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 5. Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA; Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 6. Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to characterize the use and impact of assessments of understanding in parent-clinician communication for critically ill infants. METHODS: We enrolled parents and clinicians participating in family conferences for infants with neurologic conditions. Family conferences were audio recorded as they occurred. We used a directed content analysis approach to identify clinician assessments of understanding and parent responses to those assessments. Assessments were classified based on an adapted framework; responses were characterized as "absent," "yes/no," or "elaborated." RESULTS: Fifty conferences involving the care of 25 infants were analyzed; these contained 374 distinct assessments of understanding. Most (n = 209/374, 56%) assessments were partial (i.e. okay?); a minority (n = 60/374, 16%) were open-ended. When clinicians asked open-ended questions, parents elaborated in their answers most of the time (n = 55/60, 92%). Approximately three-quarter of partial assessments yielded no verbal response from parents. No conferences included a teach-back. CONCLUSIONS: Although common, most clinician assessments of understanding were partial or close-ended and rarely resulted in elaborated responses from parents. Open-ended assessments are an effective, underutilized strategy to increase parent engagement and clinician awareness of information needs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians hoping to facilitate parent engagement and question-asking should rely on open-ended statements to assess understanding.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to characterize the use and impact of assessments of understanding in parent-clinician communication for critically ill infants. METHODS: We enrolled parents and clinicians participating in family conferences for infants with neurologic conditions. Family conferences were audio recorded as they occurred. We used a directed content analysis approach to identify clinician assessments of understanding and parent responses to those assessments. Assessments were classified based on an adapted framework; responses were characterized as "absent," "yes/no," or "elaborated." RESULTS: Fifty conferences involving the care of 25 infants were analyzed; these contained 374 distinct assessments of understanding. Most (n = 209/374, 56%) assessments were partial (i.e. okay?); a minority (n = 60/374, 16%) were open-ended. When clinicians asked open-ended questions, parents elaborated in their answers most of the time (n = 55/60, 92%). Approximately three-quarter of partial assessments yielded no verbal response from parents. No conferences included a teach-back. CONCLUSIONS: Although common, most clinician assessments of understanding were partial or close-ended and rarely resulted in elaborated responses from parents. Open-ended assessments are an effective, underutilized strategy to increase parent engagement and clinician awareness of information needs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians hoping to facilitate parent engagement and question-asking should rely on open-ended statements to assess understanding.
Authors: Tessie W October; Pamela S Hinds; Jichuan Wang; Zoelle B Dizon; Yao I Cheng; Debra L Roter Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Mirjam A de Vos; Albert P Bos; Frans B Plötz; Marc van Heerde; Bert M de Graaff; Kiek Tates; Robert D Truog; Dick L Willems Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2015-01-05 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Adam Badaczewski; Laurie J Bauman; Arthur E Blank; Benard Dreyer; Mary Ann Abrams; Ruth E K Stein; Debra L Roter; Jobayer Hossain; Hal Byck; Iman Sharif Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2017-02-24
Authors: William R Hersh; Annette M Totten; Karen B Eden; Beth Devine; Paul Gorman; Steven Z Kassakian; Susan S Woods; Monica Daeges; Miranda Pappas; Marian S McDonagh Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2015-12-15