Developing and validating the Unhurried Conversations Assessment Tool (UCAT).

OBJECTIVE: Given the importance of unhurried conversations for providing careful and kind care, we sought to create, test, and validate the Unhurried Conversations Assessment Tool (UCAT) for assessing the unhurriedness of patient-clinician consultations. METHODS: In the first two phases, the unhurried conversation dimensions were identified and transformed into an assessment tool. In the third phase, two independent raters used UCAT to evaluate the unhurriedness of 100 randomly selected consultations from 184 videos recorded for a large research trial. UCAT's psychometric properties were evaluated using this data. RESULTS: UCAT demonstrates content validity based on the literature and expert review. EFA and reliability analyses confirm its construct validity and internal consistency. The seven formative dimensions account for 89.93% of the variance in unhurriedness, each displaying excellent internal consistency (α > 0.90). Inter-rater agreement for the overall assessment item was fair (ICC = 0.59), with individual dimension ICCs ranging from 0.26 (poor) to 0.95 (excellent). CONCLUSION: UCAT components comprehensively assess the unhurriedness of consultations. The tool exhibits content and construct validity and can be used reliably. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: UCAT's design and psychometric properties make it a practical and efficient tool. Clinicians can use it for self-evaluations and training to foster unhurried conversations.

Does the duration of ambulatory consultations affect the quality of healthcare? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The objective is to examine and synthesise the best available experimental evidence about the effect of ambulatory consultation duration on quality of healthcare. METHODS: We included experimental studies manipulating the length of outpatient clinical encounters between adult patients and clinicians (ie, therapists, pharmacists, nurses, physicians) to determine their effect on quality of care (ie, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, safety, equity, patient-centredness and patient satisfaction). INFORMATION SOURCES: Using controlled vocabulary and keywords, without restriction by language or year of publication, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus from inception until 15 May 2023. RISK OF BIAS: Cochrane Risk of Bias instrument. DATA SYNTHESIS: Narrative synthesis. RESULTS: 11 publications of 10 studies explored the relationship between encounter duration and quality. Most took place in the UK's general practice over two decades ago. Study findings based on very sparse and outdated evidence-which suggested that longer consultations improved indicators of patient-centred care, education about prevention and clinical referrals; and that consultation duration was inconsistently related to patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes-warrant low confidence due to limited protections against bias and indirect applicability to current practice. CONCLUSION: Experimental evidence for a minimal or optimal duration of an outpatient consultation is sparse and outdated. To develop evidence-based policies and practices about encounter length, randomised trials of different consultation lengths-in person and virtually, and with electronic health records-are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: OSF Registration DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/EUDK8.

ABLE to support patient financial capacity: A qualitative analysis of cost conversations in clinical encounters.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how costs of care are discussed in real clinical encounters and what humanistic elements support them. METHODS: A qualitative thematic analysis of 41 purposively selected transcripts of video-recorded clinical encounters from trials run between 2007 and 2015. Videos were obtained from a corpus of 220 randomly selected videos from 8 practice-based randomized trials and 1 pre-post prospective study comparing care with and without shared decision making (SDM) tools. RESULTS: Our qualitative analysis identified two major themes: the first, Space Needed for Cost Conversations, describes patients' needs regarding their financial capacity. The second, Caring Responses, describes humanistic elements that patients and clinicians can bring to clinical encounters to include good quality cost conversations. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that strengthening patient-clinician human connections, focusing on imbalances between patient resources and burdens, and providing space to allow potentially unexpected cost discussions to emerge may best support high quality cost conversations and tailored care plans. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We recommend clinicians consider 4 aspects of communication, represented by the mnemonic ABLE: Ask questions, Be kind and acknowledge emotions, Listen for indirect signals and (discuss with) Every patient. Future research should evaluate the practicality of these recommendations, along with system-level improvements to support implementation of our recommendations.

Impact of Cost Conversations During Clinical Encounters Aided by Shared Decision-Making Tools on Medication Adherence.

Objective: To investigate the impact of cost conversations occurring with or without the use of encounter shared decision-making (SDM) tools in medication adherence. Patients and Methods: Using a coding scheme that included the occurrence and characteristics of cost conversation, we analyzed a randomly selected sample of 169 video recordings of clinical encounters. These videos were obtained during the conduct of practice-based randomized clinical trials comparing care with and without SDM tools for patients with diabetes, osteoporosis, and depression. Medication adherence was described in 2 ways: as a binary (yes/no) outcome, in which the patient met at least 80% adherence, or as a continuous variable, which was the percent of days that the patient adhered to their medication. The secondary analysis took place in 2018 from trials that ran between 2007 and 2015. Results: Most patients were White (155, 93.4%), educated (104, 63.4% completed college), middle-aged (mean age, 58 years), female (104, 61.5%), and from diabetes (86, 50.9%), depression (43, 25.4%), and osteoporosis (40, 23.7%) trials. Cost conversations occurred in 119 clinical encounters (70%) and were more frequent in those encounters in which SDM tools were used (P=.03). Furthermore, 97 (57.4%) of the participants reported more than 80% medication adherence and 70.3±29.34 percentage of days with adherent medication of 70 days. In the multiple regression model, the only factor associated with adherence (binary or continuous) was the condition of the trial in which people participated. For the participants who had cost conversations, the use of an SDM tool, their sex, the nature of cost conversation (direct or indirect), the nature of cost concerns (treatment or patient issue), and the clinician-offered strategies (yes or no) were not associated with adherence. Conclusion: In this videographic analysis of SDM practice-based clinical trials, cost conversations were not associated with the general measures of medication adherence. Future studies should assess whether a tailored cost conversation intervention would impact the cost-related nonadherence among patients.

Do patients with high versus low treatment and illness burden have different needs? A mixed-methods study of patients living on dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 750,000 people in the U.S. live with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD); the majority receive dialysis. Despite the importance of adherence to dialysis, it remains suboptimal, and one contributor may be patients' insufficient capacity to cope with their treatment and illness burden. However, it is unclear what, if any, differences exist between patients reporting high versus low treatment and illness burden. METHODS: We sought to understand these differences using a mixed methods, explanatory sequential design. We enrolled adult patients receiving dialysis, including in-center hemodialysis, home hemodialysis, and peritoneal dialysis. Descriptive patient characteristics were collected. Participants' treatment and illness burden was measured using the Illness Intrusiveness Scale (IIS). Participants scoring in the highest quartile were defined as having high burden, and participants scoring in the lowest quartile as having low burden. Participants in both quartiles were invited to participate in interviews and observations. RESULTS: Quantitatively, participants in the high burden group were significantly younger (mean = 48.4 years vs. 68.6 years respectively, p = <0.001). No other quantitative differences were observed. Qualitatively, we found differences in patient self-management practices, such as the high burden group having difficulty establishing a new rhythm of life to cope with dialysis, greater disruption in social roles and self-perception, fewer appraisal focused coping strategies, more difficulty maintaining social networks, and more negatively portrayed experiences early in their dialysis journey. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients on dialysis reporting the greatest illness and treatment burden have difficulties that their low-burden counterparts do not report, which may be amenable to intervention.

Patients' Perspective About the Cost of Diabetes Management: An Analysis of Online Health Communities.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the perspectives of persons' living with diabetes about the increasing cost of diabetes management through an analysis of online health communities (OHCs) and the impact of persons' participation in OHCs on their capacity and treatment burden. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A qualitative study of 556 blog posts submitted between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2017 to 4 diabetes social networking sites was conducted between March 2018 and July 2019. All posts were coded inductively using thematic analysis procedures. Eton's Burden of Treatment Framework and Boehmer's Theory of Patient Capacity directed triangulation of themes with existing theory. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: (1) cost barriers to care: participants describe individual and systemic cost barriers that inhibit prescribed therapy goals; (2) impact of financial cost on health: participants describe the financial effects of care on their physical and emotional health; and (3) saving strategies to overcome cost impact: participants discuss practical strategies that help them achieve therapy goals. Finally, we also identify that the use of OHCs serves to increase persons' capacity with the potential to decrease treatment burden, ultimately improving mental and physical health. CONCLUSION: High cost for diabetes care generated barriers that negatively affected physical health and emotional states. Participant-shared experiences in OHCs increased participants' capacity to manage the burden. Potential solutions include cost-based shared decision-making tools and advocacy for policy change.

Impact of Cost Conversation on Decision-Making Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of cost conversations on the following decision-making outcomes: patients' knowledge about their conditions and treatment options, decisional conflict, and patient involvement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 2020 we performed a secondary analysis of a randomly selected set of 220 video recordings of clinical encounters from trials run between 2007 and 2015. Videos were obtained from eight practice-based randomized trials and one pre-post-prospective study comparing care with and without shared decision-making (SDM) tools. RESULTS: The majority of trial participants were female (61%) and White (86%), with a mean age of 56, some college education (68%), and an income greater than or equal to $40,000 per year (75%), and who did not participate in an encounter aided by an SDM tool (52%). Cost conversations occurred in 106 encounters (48%). In encounters with SDM tools, having a cost conversation lead to lower uncertainty scores (2.1 vs 2.6, P=.02), and higher knowledge (0.7 vs 0.6, P=.04) and patient involvement scores (20 vs 15.7, P=.009) than in encounters using SDM tools where cost conversations did not occur. In a multivariate model, we found slightly worse decisional conflict scores when patients started cost conversations as opposed to when the clinicians started cost conversations. Furthermore, we found higher levels of knowledge when conversations included indirect versus direct cost issues. CONCLUSION: Cost conversations have a minimal but favorable impact on decision-making outcomes in clinical encounters, particularly when they occurred in encounters aided by an SDM tool that raises cost as an issue.

Using Shared Decision-Making Tools and Patient-Clinician Conversations About Costs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how shared decision-making (SDM) tools used during clinical encounters that raise cost as an issue impact the incidence of cost conversations between patients and clinicians. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomly selected set of 220 video recordings of clinical encounters were analyzed. Videos were obtained from eight practice-based randomized clinical trials and one quasi-randomized clinical trial (pre- and post-) comparing care with and without SDM tools. The secondary analysis took place in 2018 from trials ran between 2007 and 2015. RESULTS: Most patient participants were white (85%), educated (38% completed college), middle-aged (mean age 56 years), and female (61%). There were 105 encounters with and 115 without the SDM tool. Encounters with SDM tools were more likely to include both general cost conversations (62% vs 36%, odds ratio [OR]: 9.6; 95% CI: 4 to 26) as well as conversations on medication costs specifically (89% vs 51%, P=.01). However, clinicians using SDM tools were less likely to address cost issues during the encounter (37% vs 51%, P=.04). Encounters with patients with less than a college degree were also associated with a higher incidence of cost conversations. CONCLUSION: Using SDM tools that raise cost as an issue increased the occurrence of cost conversations but was less likely to address cost issues or offer potential solutions to patients' cost concerns. This result suggests that SDM tools used during the consultation can trigger cost conversations but are insufficient to support them.

Validation of the Elderly Risk Assessment Index in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: The Elderly Risk Assessment (ERA) score is a validated index for primary care patients that predict hospitalizations, mortality, and Emergency Department (ED) visits. The score incorporates age, prior hospital days, marital status, and comorbidities. Our aim was to validate the ERA score in ED patients. METHODS: Observational cohort study of patients age ≥ 60 presenting to an academic ED over a 1-year period. Regression analyses were performed for associations with outcomes (hospitalization, return visits and death). Medians, interquartile range (IQR), odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: The cohort included 27,397 visits among 18,607 patients. Median age 74 years (66-82), 48% were female and 59% were married. Patients from 54% of visits were admitted to the hospital, 16% returned to the ED within 30 days, and 18% died within one year. Higher ERA scores were associated with: hospital admission (score 10 [4-16] vs 5 [1-11], p < 0.0001), return visits (11 [5-17] vs 7 [2-13], p < 0.0001); and death within one year (14 [7-20] vs 6 [2-13], p < 0.0001). Patients with ERA score ≥ 16 were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, OR 2.14 (2.02-2.28, p < 0.0001), return within 30 days OR 1.99 (1.85-2.14), and to die within a year, OR 2.69 (2.54-2.85). CONCLUSION: The ERA score can be automatically calculated within the electronic health record and helps identify patients at increased risk of death, hospitalization and return ED visits. The ERA score can be applied to ED patients, and may help prognosticate the need for advanced care planning.