Columbia University School of Nursing, 630 West 168 Street- Mail Code 6, New York, NY 10032, USA.
Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, New York, NY, USA.
Int J Clin Pract. 2022 Jun 7;2022:9236681. doi: 10.1155/2022/9236681. eCollection 2022.
Effective team communication is an essential aspect of care delivery and the coordination of patients in primary care settings. With the rapid evolution of health information technology (HIT), including the implementation of electronic health records, there remains a gap in the literature about preferred methods of primary care team communication and the subsequent impact of provider and team outcomes (e.g., team cohesiveness; burnout). This study explores the impact of varying modes of communication across provider disciplines and by geographic settings during primary care delivery.
We used a cross-sectional survey design to collect data from a random convenience sample of PCPs (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) ( = 314) in New York State (NYS). We mailed a paper survey with validated measures for communication methods, team cohesiveness, and provider outcomes (burnout, job dissatisfaction, and the intention to leave position). Descriptive statistics, linear regression models, and crude and adjusted odds ratios while controlling for individual and practice characteristics were calculated.
In-person communication was found to yield greater job satisfaction and less intention to leave current position in the next year (=0.02) compared to other forms of communication including electronic health record features. The odds of job satisfaction was 1.51 times higher with in-person communication (OR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.05, 2.19), and the odds of intending to leave a position was 45% less with in-person communication (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.36, 0.85). The odds of reporting burnout at work was 36% less with in-person communication (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.92) compared to other communication modalities. There was no significant association between team communication via the EHR and team cohesiveness, provider burnout, or job satisfaction.
This study demonstrates evidence that in-person communication is more likely to reduce burnout and job dissatisfaction compared to other forms of communication infrastructure in primary care settings. More research is needed to understand PCP perspectives about the functionality and potential burden that inhibits the use of EHR features for provider-provider communication. In addition, attention to the needs of teams by geographic location and by workforce discipline is warranted to ensure effective HIT communication application adoption.
有效的团队沟通是提供医疗服务和协调初级保健环境中患者的重要方面。随着健康信息技术(HIT)的快速发展,包括电子健康记录的实施,在初级保健团队沟通的首选方法以及随后对提供者和团队结果(例如团队凝聚力;倦怠)的影响方面,文献中仍然存在差距。本研究探讨了在提供初级保健服务时,不同提供者学科和地理位置之间的沟通方式的影响。
我们使用横断面调查设计,从纽约州(NYS)的随机便利样本中收集了初级保健提供者(医生、护士从业者和医师助理)(=314)的数据。我们通过纸质调查向他们发送了具有沟通方式、团队凝聚力和提供者结果(倦怠、工作不满和离开职位的意图)的经过验证的衡量标准的问卷。计算了描述性统计数据、线性回归模型以及在控制个人和实践特征的情况下的粗和调整后的优势比。
与其他沟通方式(包括电子健康记录功能)相比,面对面沟通可带来更高的工作满意度和更低的来年离职意愿(=0.02)。面对面沟通的工作满意度优势比为 1.51 倍(OR:1.51,95%CI:1.05,2.19),而面对面沟通的离职意愿优势比降低了 45%(OR:0.55,95%CI:0.36,0.85)。与其他沟通方式相比,面对面沟通报告工作倦怠的可能性降低了 36%(OR:0.64,95%CI:0.43,0.92)。通过电子病历进行团队沟通与团队凝聚力、提供者倦怠或工作满意度之间没有显著关联。
本研究表明,与初级保健环境中的其他沟通基础设施相比,面对面沟通更有可能减轻倦怠和工作不满。需要进一步研究以了解初级保健提供者对电子病历功能的看法以及可能阻碍其用于提供者间沟通的潜在负担。此外,需要关注地理位置和劳动力学科的团队需求,以确保有效 HIT 沟通应用的采用。