Farrell Michael H, Kuruvilla Pramita
Center for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Rd, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008 Mar;162(3):199-204. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2007.55.
To investigate pediatric residents' efforts to assess understanding in discussions about positive newborn screening test results. Newborn screening saves lives, but confusion about false-positive and carrier results often leads to psychosocial problems.
Explicit-criteria abstraction of transcripts of encounters with standardized parents of a fictitious infant found to carry cystic fibrosis or sickle cell hemoglobinopathy.
Simulated doctor-patient encounter.
Pediatric residents participating in an educational workshop on how to inform parents about positive newborn screening test results.
Abstraction used an explicit-criteria data dictionary with definitions for 5 different ways to assess understanding. A "partial" designation was used for leading syntax or no pause for response.
Interabstractor reliability over 59 transcripts (2 per resident) was kappa = 0.93. Only 26 of 59 transcripts (44.1%) met definite criteria for at least 1 assessment of understanding. Most assessments were the less effective close-ended (37.3% of transcripts) and "OK?" question types (32.2% of transcripts). Only 3 transcripts met definite criteria for an open-ended assessment and no transcripts included a request for a teach-back, the type thought to be most effective. Four transcripts (6.8%) included an advance request for questions. With partial-criteria assessments included, an additional 31 transcripts (52%) were identified.
The small number of assessments of understanding and the high fraction of less effective assessments do not bode well for parental understanding, especially for parents with limited health literacy. Training programs should address assessments of understanding, but quality improvement activities using these types of assessment methods may also be needed.
调查儿科住院医师在讨论新生儿筛查阳性结果时评估家长理解情况的努力程度。新生儿筛查能挽救生命,但对假阳性和携带者结果的困惑常常导致心理社会问题。
对与虚构的携带囊性纤维化或镰状细胞血红蛋白病婴儿的标准化家长进行问诊的记录进行明确标准的摘要分析。
模拟医患问诊。
参加关于如何告知家长新生儿筛查阳性结果的教育研讨会的儿科住院医师。
摘要分析使用了一个明确标准的数据字典,其中定义了5种不同的评估理解情况的方式。“部分”指定用于引导性句法或无回应停顿的情况。
对59份记录(每位住院医师2份)的摘要分析者间信度为kappa = 0.93。59份记录中只有26份(44.1%)至少在1项理解评估中符合明确标准。大多数评估是效果较差的封闭式(占记录的37.3%)和“好吗?”问题类型(占记录的32.2%)。只有3份记录符合开放式评估的明确标准,没有记录包含要求家长复述的内容,而这种类型被认为是最有效的。4份记录(6.8%)包含提前询问问题的内容。纳入部分标准评估后,又识别出31份记录(52%)。
理解评估的数量较少且效果较差的评估占比很高,这对家长的理解情况而言并非好兆头,尤其是对健康素养有限的家长。培训项目应关注理解评估,但可能也需要使用这类评估方法开展质量改进活动。