We Want to Know-A Mixed Methods Evaluation of a Comprehensive Program Designed to Detect and Address Patient-Reported Breakdowns in Care

Patient-mediated interventions in hospital: A systematic review

AIMS

To describe the characteristics of hospital-based, patient-mediated interventions and their impact on patient, clinician and organization outcomes.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Health literature databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE) were searched in August 2021. Backward and forward citation searching was conducted.

REVIEW METHODS

Studies investigating patient-mediated interventions, targeted at adult hospitalized patients were eligible. Data were extracted related to study and intervention characteristics. Narrative synthesis was used to understand intervention impact on patient, clinician and organization outcomes (as per a framework). Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies, reporting 18 interventions, were included. Twelve interventions prompted patients to report health information about their own health/needs/concerns and six interventions encouraged patients to provide feedback about clinical practice. Across all interventions, there was evidence that patients used patient-mediated interventions and that they may improve patient communication. Healthcare professional outcomes were mixed for actual/intended use, acceptability and usefulness of interventions; yet there was some evidence of healthcare professional behaviour change. Interventions that encouraged patients to report health information about their own health/needs/concerns appeared more successful than other types of interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence that hospital-based patient-mediated interventions may influence patient communication and healthcare professional behaviour. Patient-mediated interventions that encourage patients to report patient data before a clinical encounter may be more impactful than interventions that encourage patient feedback during or post-encounter.

IMPACT

To date, most patient-mediated intervention research has been conducted in primary care settings; we uncovered the types of patient-mediated interventions that have been trialled in hospitals. We found that patient communication and healthcare professional behaviour may be influenced by these patient-mediated interventions. Future researchers could explore the suitability and effectiveness of a wider range of hospital-based patient-mediated interventions.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

There was no funding to remunerate a patient/member of the public for this review.

Risk Communication After Health Care Exposures: An Experimental Vignette Survey With Patients

Purpose. We investigated how health care systems should communicate with patients about possible exposures to blood-borne pathogens that may have occurred during their care. Our goal was to determine how best to communicate uncertain risk information in a way that would minimize harm to patients, maintain their trust, and encourage patients to seek follow-up treatment. Methods. Participants (N = 1103) were randomized to receive one of six vignette surveys; 997 (98.4%) responded. All vignettes described the same event, but differed by risk level and recommendations (lower risk v. higher risk) and by communication mode (telephone, letter, social media). We measured participants’ perceived risk of blood-borne infection, trust in the health care system, and shared decision making about next clinical steps. Open-ended questions were analyzed using grounded thematic analysis. Results. When the vignette requested patients to undergo testing and practice certain health behaviors (higher risk), participants’ likelihood of seeking follow-up testing for blood-borne pathogens and their understanding of health issues increased. Perceived trust was unaffected by risk level or communication processes. Qualitative data indicated a desire for telephone communication from providers known to the patient. Limitations. It is not clear whether higher risk language or objective risk levels in vignettes motivated patients’ behavioral intentions. Conclusion. Using higher risk language when disclosing large-scale adverse events increased participants’ willingness to seek follow-up care. Implications. Health care organizations’ disclosures should focus on the next steps to take after health care exposures. This communication should involve helping patients to understand their personal health issues better, make them feel that they know which steps to take following the receipt of this information, and encouraging them to seek follow-up infectious disease testing in order to better take care of themselves.