Center for Patent Care and Outcomes Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226-0509, USA.
Patient Educ Couns. 2009 Oct;77(1):128-35. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.03.013. Epub 2009 Apr 19.
To introduce a method for quantifying clinicians' use of assessment of understanding (AU) questions, and to examine medicine residents' AU usage during counseling of standardized patients about prostate or breast cancer screening.
Explicit-criteria abstraction was done on 86 transcripts, using a data dictionary for 4 AU types. We also developed a procedure for estimating the "load" of informational content for which the clinician has not yet assessed understanding.
Duplicate abstraction revealed reliability kappa=0.96. Definite criteria for at least one AU were found in 68/86 transcripts (79%). Of these, 2 transcripts contained a request for a teach-back ("what is your understanding of this?"), 2 contained an open-ended AU, 46 (54%) contained only a close-ended AU, and 18 (21%) only contained an "OK?" question. The load calculation identified long stretches of conversation without an AU.
Many residents' transcripts lacked AUs, and included AUs were often ineffectively phrased or inefficiently timed. Many patients may not understand clinicians, and many clinicians may be unaware of patients' confusion.
Effective AU usage is important enough to be encouraged by training programs and targeted by population-scale quality improvement programs. This quantitative method should be useful in population-scale measurement of AU usage.
介绍一种量化临床医生使用评估理解(AU)问题的方法,并考察住院医师在向前列腺或乳腺癌筛查标准化患者提供咨询时使用 AU 的情况。
使用 AU 4 种类型的数据字典,对 86 份转录本进行明确标准的摘要。我们还开发了一种程序,用于估计尚未评估理解的信息内容的“负荷”。
重复摘要的可靠性kappa 值为 0.96。68/86 份转录本(79%)至少有一个 AU 的明确标准。其中,2 份转录本包含一个要求反馈的 AU(“你对这个的理解是什么?”),2 份转录本包含一个开放式 AU,46 份(54%)仅包含一个封闭式 AU,18 份(21%)仅包含一个“好的?”问题。负荷计算确定了没有 AU 的长段对话。
许多住院医师的转录本缺乏 AU,包含的 AU 往往措辞不当或时机不当。许多患者可能不理解临床医生,许多临床医生可能没有意识到患者的困惑。
有效的 AU 使用非常重要,培训计划应鼓励使用 AU,人群规模的质量改进计划也应针对 AU 使用进行靶向干预。这种定量方法应可用于人群规模的 AU 使用测量。