Patient capacity for self-care in the medical record of patients with chronic conditions: a mixed-methods retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic conditions must mobilize capacity to access and use healthcare and enact self-care. In order for clinicians to create feasible treatment plans with patients, they must appreciate the limits and possibilities of patient capacity. This study seeks to characterize the amount, nature, and comprehensiveness of the information about patient capacity documented in the medical record. METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, we extracted notes about 6 capacity domains from the medical records of 100 patients receiving care from 15 primary care clinicians at a single practice. Using a generalized linear model to account for repeated measures across multiple encounters, we calculated the rate of documented domains per encounter per patient adjusted for appointment type and number. Following quantitative analyses, we purposefully selected records to conduct inductive content analysis. RESULTS: After adjusting for number of appointments and appointment type, primary care notes contained the most mentions of capacity. Physical capacity was most noted, followed by personal, emotional, social, financial, and environmental. Qualitatively, we found three documentation patterns: patients with broad capacity notes, patients with predominantly physical domain capacity notes, and patients with capacity notes mostly in domains other than physical. Records contained almost no mention of patients' environmental or financial capacity, or of how they coped with capacity limitations. Rarely, did notes ever mention how well patients interacted with their social network or what support they provided to the patient in managing their health. CONCLUSION: Medical records scarcely document patient capacity. This may impair the ability of clinicians to determine how patients can handle patient work, at what point patient capacity might become overwhelmed leading to poor adherence and health outcomes, and how best to craft feasible treatment programs that patients can implement with high fidelity.

The efficacy of early language intervention in mainstream school settings: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Oral language skills are a critical foundation for literacy and more generally for educational success. The current study shows that oral language skills can be improved by providing suitable additional help to children with language difficulties in the early stages of formal education. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial with 394 children in England, comparing a 30-week oral language intervention programme starting in nursery (N = 132) with a 20-week version of the same programme starting in Reception (N = 133). The intervention groups were compared to an untreated waiting control group (N = 129). The programmes were delivered by trained teaching assistants (TAs) working in the children's schools/nurseries. All testers were blind to group allocation. RESULTS: Both the 20- and 30-week programmes produced improvements on primary outcome measures of oral language skill compared to the untreated control group. Effect sizes were small to moderate (20-week programme: d = .21; 30-week programme: d = .30) immediately following the intervention and were maintained at follow-up 6 months later. The difference in improvement between the 20-week and 30-week programmes was not statistically significant. Neither programme produced statistically significant improvements in children's early word reading or reading comprehension skills (secondary outcome measures). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides further evidence that oral language interventions can be delivered successfully by trained TAs to children with oral language difficulties in nursery and Reception classes. The methods evaluated have potentially important policy implications for early education.