Schillinger Dean, Machtinger Edward L, Wang Frances, Palacios Jorge, Rodriguez Maytrella, Bindman Andrew
University of California-San Francisco, Center for Vulnerable Populations, Division of General Internal Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, California 94110, USA.
J Health Commun. 2006 Oct-Nov;11(7):651-64. doi: 10.1080/10810730600934500.
Despite the importance of clinician-patient communication, little is known about rates and predictors of medication miscommunication. Measuring rates of miscommunication, as well as differences between verbal and visual modes of assessment, can inform efforts to more effectively communicate about medications. We studied 220 diverse patients in an anticoagulation clinic to assess concordance between patient and clinician reports of warfarin regimens. Bilingual research assistants asked patients to (1) verbalize their prescribed weekly warfarin regimen and (2) identify this regimen from a digitized color menu of warfarin pills. We obtained clinician reports of patient regimens from chart review. Patients were categorized as having regimen concordance if there were no patient-clinician discrepancies in total weekly dosage. We then examined whether verbal and visual concordance rates varied with patient's language and health literacy. Fifty percent of patients achieved verbal concordance and 66% achieved visual concordance with clinicians regarding the weekly warfarin regimen (P < .001). Being a Cantonese speaker and having inadequate health literacy were associated with a lower odds of verbal concordance compared with English speakers and subjects with adequate health literacy (AOR 0.44, 0.21-0.93, AOR 0.50, 0.26-0.99, respectively). Neither language nor health literacy was associated with visual discordance. Shifting from verbal to visual modes was associated with greater patient-provider concordance across all patient subgroups, but especially for those with communication barriers.Clinician-patient discordance regarding patients' warfarin regimen was common but occurred less frequently when patients used a visual aid. Visual aids may improve the accuracy of medication assessment, especially for patients with communication barriers.
尽管临床医生与患者之间的沟通很重要,但关于用药沟通的发生率及预测因素却知之甚少。测量沟通失误率以及言语和视觉评估方式之间的差异,可为更有效地进行用药沟通提供参考。我们在一家抗凝门诊对220名不同的患者进行了研究,以评估患者与临床医生关于华法林治疗方案报告的一致性。双语研究助理要求患者:(1)说出他们规定的每周华法林治疗方案;(2)从华法林药片的数字化彩色菜单中识别出该治疗方案。我们通过查阅病历获得了临床医生关于患者治疗方案的报告。如果每周总剂量在患者与临床医生之间没有差异,患者则被归类为治疗方案一致。然后,我们检查了言语和视觉一致性率是否随患者的语言和健康素养而变化。在每周华法林治疗方案方面,50%的患者与临床医生达成了言语一致,66%达成了视觉一致(P < .001)。与说英语的患者和健康素养充足的受试者相比,说粤语且健康素养不足的患者言语一致的几率较低(优势比分别为0.44,0.21 - 0.93;优势比为0.50,0.26 - 0.99)。语言和健康素养均与视觉不一致无关。在所有患者亚组中,从言语模式转变为视觉模式都与患者和提供者之间更高的一致性相关,尤其是对于那些有沟通障碍的患者。临床医生与患者在华法林治疗方案上的不一致很常见,但当患者使用视觉辅助工具时发生频率较低。视觉辅助工具可能会提高用药评估的准确性,尤其是对于有沟通障碍的患者。