Three strategies when physicians provide complex information in interactions with patients: How to recognize and measure them

How do doctors address heart failure patients' disclosures of medication adherence problems during hospital and primary care consultations? An exploratory interaction-based observational cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate how doctors and self-managing older patients with heart failure (HF) discuss the patients' potential or ongoing medication adherence problems, and how such discussions evolve as patients transition from hospital to home, with particular focus on: (1) doctors' communicative actions aimed at addressing patient disclosures of adherence problems and (2) patients' feedback indicating whether their doctor's supportive actions were acceptable to them.

DESIGN

Exploratory interaction-based observational cohort study. Inductive microanalysis of authentic patient-doctor consultations, audio recorded for each patient at: (1) first ward visit in hospital, (2) discharge visit from hospital and (3) follow-up visit with general practitioner (GP).

SETTING

Hospital and primary care, Norway (2022-2023).

PARTICIPANTS

25 patients with HF (+65 years) and their attending doctors (23 hospital doctors, 25 GPs).

RESULTS

Analysis of 74 consultations revealed that 25 HF patients disclosed 23 practical adherence problems indicating risks of unintentional non-adherence (eg, limited resources to manage medications) and 39 perceptual problems indicating risks of intentional non-adherence (eg, worries, negative experience or stance). Doctors addressed 79% of patients' disclosures by: (1) exploring the scope of the problem or (2) providing supportive actions to improve patients' ability or motivation to adhere. We calculated nearly five times higher odds for doctors to address patients' practical problems to their perceptual problems (OR 4.79, 95% CI 1.25 to 25.83). Unresolved problems included: (1) doctors addressed patients' disclosures, but patients signalled the supportive actions were unsuitable (37%) and (2) doctors left disclosures unaddressed (21%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this explorative study, the doctors were more likely to address the patients' adherence problems associated with unintentional non-adherence risks than those associated with intentional non-adherence risks. Even when doctors attempted to address HF patients' medication adherence problems, half of the problems remained unresolved, usually because patients indicated that the doctor's suggestion to improve their situation was against their preference.

What do patients with heart failure disclose about medication adherence at home to their hospital and primary care doctors? Exploratory interaction-based observational cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study was twofold: to investigate what kind of information patients with heart failure (HF) tell their doctors about their medication adherence at home, and how often such information is provided in consultations where medication reconciliation is recommended. To meet these objectives, we developed an analysis to recognise, define, and count (1) patient utterances including medication adherence disclosures in clinical interactions (MADICI), (2) MADICI including red-flags for non-adherence, and (3) MADICI initiated by patients without prompts from their doctor.

DESIGN

Exploratory interaction-based observational cohort study. Inductive microanalysis of authentic patient-doctor consultations, audio-recorded at three time-points for each patient: (1) first ward visit in hospital, (2) discharge visit from hospital, and (3) follow-up visit with general practitioner (GP).

SETTING

Norway (2022-2023).

PARTICIPANTS

25 patients with HF (+65 years) and their attending doctors (23 hospital doctors, 25 GPs).

RESULTS

We recognised MADICI by two criteria: (1) they are about medication prescribed for use at home, AND (2) they involve patients' action, experience, or stance regarding medications. Using these criteria, we identified 427 MADICIs in 25 patient trajectories: 143 (34%) at first ward visit (min-max=0-35, median=3), 57 (13%) at discharge visit (min-max=0-8, median=2), 227 (53%) at GP-visit (min-max=2-24, median=7). Of 427 MADICIs, 235 (55%) included red-flags for non-adherence. Bumetanide and atorvastatin were most frequently mentioned as problematic. Patients initiated 146 (34%) of 427 MADICIs. Of 235 'red-flag MADICIs', 101 (43%) were initiated by patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-managing older patients with HF disclosed information about their use of medications at home, often including red-flags for non-adherence. Patients who disclosed information that signals adherence problems tended to do so unprompted. Such disclosures generate opportunities for doctors to assess and support patients' medication adherence at home.

How do hospital providers perceive and experience the information-delivery process? A qualitative exploratory study

Objective

To explore how professionals deal with informing their patients and how they experience the process per se, in order to deepen understanding of the issues involved and to identify areas of focus for improvement.

Methods

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 13 hospital professionals at Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland.

Results

Information includes feedback, practical information, patient condition, treatment/process of care, and educational material. Information-delivery is a process that involves informing the patient then checking patient reception of the information. The main expected outcome is patient action. Providers can feel trapped, guilty, inadequate, powerless, disenchanted when the process fails to achieve its expected purpose.

Conclusions

Informing and checking strategies are not implemented optimally, and providers could benefit from guidance in order to decrease discomfort and become more proficient at delivering information.

Innovation

Addressing the information-delivery process per se provides us with a novel insight into the complexity of the process and contributes to identifying essential ingredients of future innovative training programs for providers at large.

Training physicians in providing complex information to patients with multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of a specific communication training for neurologists on how to provide complex information about treatment options to patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

DESIGN

Single-centre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

One university hospital in Norway.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-four patients with early-stage MS.

INTERVENTION

A 3-hour training for neurologists on how to provide complex information about MS escalation therapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient recall rate, measured with a reliable counting system of provided and recalled information about drugs.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Number of information units provided by the physicians. Effects on patient involvement through questionnaires.

METHODS

Patients with MS were instructed to imagine a disease development and were randomised and blinded to meet a physician to receive information on escalation therapy, before or after the physician had participated in a 3-hour training on how to provide complex information. Consultations and immediate patient recall interviews were video-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

RESULTS

Patient recall rate was 0.37 (SD=0.10) pre-intervention and 0.39 (SD=0.10) post-intervention. The effect of the intervention on recall rate predicted with a general linear model covariate was not significant (coefficient parameter 0.07 (SE 0.04, 95% CI (-0.01 to 0.15)), p=0.099).The physicians tended to provide significantly fewer information units after the training, with an average of 91.0 (SD=30.3) pre-intervention and 76.5 (SD=17.4) post-intervention; coefficient parameter -0.09 (SE 0.02, 95% CI (-0.13 to -0.05)), p<0.001. There was a significant negative association between the amount of provided information and the recall rate (coefficient parameter -0.29 (SE 0.05, 95% CI (-0.39 to -0.18)), p<0.001). We found no significant effects on patient involvement using the Control Preference Scale, Collaborate or Four Habits Patient Questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

A brief course for physicians on providing complex information reduced the amount of information provided, but did not improve patient recall rate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN42739508.