The power of the group: comparison of interviews and group concept mapping for identifying patient-important outcomes of care.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited regarding how to effectively and efficiently identify patient priorities for research or clinical care. Our goal was to compare the comprehensiveness and efficiency of group concept mapping (GCM), a group participatory method, to interviews for identifying patient goals when seeking care. METHODS: We engaged patients with moderately- to poorly-controlled diabetes mellitus in either GCM or an individual interview. The primary outcome was the comprehensiveness of GCM brainstorming (the first stage of GCM) as compared to interviews for eliciting patient-important outcomes (PIOs) related to seeking care. Secondary outcomes included 1) comprehensiveness of GCM brainstorming and interviews compared to a master list of PIOs and 2) efficiency of GCM brainstorming, the entire GCM process and interviews. RESULTS: We engaged 89 interview participants and 52 GCM participants (across 3 iterations of GCM) to identify outcomes most important to patients when making decisions related to diabetes management. We identified 26 PIOs in interviews, 33 PIOs in the first GCM brainstorming session, and 38 PIOs across all three GCM brainstorming sessions. The initial GCM brainstorming session identified 77% (20/26) of interview PIOs, and all 3 GCM brainstorming sessions combined identified 88% (23/26). When comparing GCM brainstorming and interviews to the master list of PIOs, the initial GCM brainstorming sessions identified 80% (33/41), all 3 GCM brainstorming sessions identified 93% (38/41) and interviews identified 63% (26/41) of all PIOs. Compared to interviews, GCM brainstorming required less research team time, more patient time, and had a lowest cost. The entire GCM process still required less research team time than interviews, though required more patient time and had a higher cost than interviews. CONCLUSIONS: GCM brainstorming is a powerful tool for effectively and efficiently identifying PIOs in certain scenarios, though it does not provide the breadth and depth of individual interviews or the higher level conceptual organization of the complete process of GCM. Selection of the optimal method for patient engagement should include consideration of multiple factors including depth of patient input desired, research team expertise, resources, and the population to be engaged. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02792777. Registration information submitted 6/2/2016, with the registration first posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov website 6/8/2016. Data collection began on 4/29/2016.

Setting a Minimum Passing Standard for the Uncertainty Communication Checklist Through Patient and Physician Engagement.

BACKGROUND: Historically, medically trained experts have served as judges to establish a minimum passing standard (MPS) for mastery learning. As mastery learning expands from procedure-based skills to patient-centered domains, such as communication, there is an opportunity to incorporate patients as judges in setting the MPS. OBJECTIVE: We described our process of incorporating patients as judges to set the MPS and compared the MPS set by patients and emergency medicine residency program directors (PDs). METHODS: Patient and physician panels were convened to determine an MPS for a 21-item Uncertainty Communication Checklist. The MPS for both panels were independently calculated using the Mastery Angoff method. Mean scores on individual checklist items with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were also calculated for both panels and differences analyzed using a t test. RESULTS: Of 240 eligible patients and 42 eligible PDs, 25 patients and 13 PDs (26% and 65% cooperation rates, respectively) completed MPS-setting procedures. The patient-generated MPS was 84.0% (range 45.2-96.2, SD 10.2) and the physician-generated MPS was 88.2% (range 79.7-98.1, SD 5.5). The overall MPS, calculated as an average of these 2 results, was 86.1% (range 45.2-98.1, SD 9.0), or 19 of 21 checklist items. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are able to serve as judges to establish an MPS using the Mastery Angoff method for a task performed by resident physicians. The patient-established MPS was nearly identical to that generated by a panel of residency PDs, indicating similar expectations of proficiency for residents to achieve skill "mastery."

Development of the Uncertainty Communication Checklist: A Patient-Centered Approach to Patient Discharge From the Emergency Department.

Clear communication with patients upon emergency department (ED) discharge is important for patient safety during the transition to outpatient care. Over one-third of patients are discharged from the ED with diagnostic uncertainty, yet there is no established approach for effective discharge communication in this scenario. From 2017 to 2019, the authors developed the Uncertainty Communication Checklist for use in simulation-based training and assessment of emergency physician communication skills when discharging patients with diagnostic uncertainty. This development process followed the established 12-step Checklist Development Checklist framework and integrated patient feedback into 6 of the 12 steps. Patient input was included as it has potential to improve patient-centeredness of checklists related to assessment of clinical performance. Focus group patient participants from 2 clinical sites were included: Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, and Northwestern University Hospital, Chicago, Illinois.The authors developed a preliminary instrument based on existing checklists, clinical experience, literature review, and input from an expert panel comprising health care professionals and patient advocates. They then refined the instrument based on feedback from 2 waves of patient focus groups, resulting in a final 21-item checklist. The checklist items assess if uncertainty was addressed in each step of the discharge communication, including the following major categories: introduction, test results/ED summary, no/uncertain diagnosis, next steps/follow-up, home care, reasons to return, and general communication skills. Patient input influenced both what items were included and the wording of items in the final checklist. This patient-centered, systematic approach to checklist development is built upon the rigor of the Checklist Development Checklist and provides an illustration of how to integrate patient feedback into the design of assessment tools when appropriate.