Increasing contextualization of care rates through clinician prompting interventions

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVE: Contextualizing care results in better outcomes for patients. Several different prompts to clinicians to increase contextualization have been studied: audit & feedback (A&F), clinical decision support (CDS), or making recording of visits openly accessible to patients (OA). We measured the effects of prompting interventions on probing of contextual red flags and incorporation of contextual factors into care plans. METHODS: Individual participant data meta-analysis of data from three controlled studies of prompts. The first (A&F, 4160 visits to 667 physicians at 6 sites) employed reports to provider teams of missed and successful contextualization opportunities. The second (CDS, 450 visits to 39 physicians at 2 sites) employed a real-time CDS tool. The third (OA, 317 visits to 30 physicians at 2 sites) cued providers that visits were recorded and would be available to patients. In each, the audios were coded using the 4 C system to identify contextual red flags, clinician probes of red flags, contextual factors, and contextualization of care plans. RESULTS: Prompting interventions increased the odds of probing by 71 % (95 % CI 54 % - 79 %) on average, with the largest impact in the A&F study but the highest probing rate in the CDS study. Overall, they increased the odds of contextualizing care plans by 33 % (95 % CI 13 %-58 %), an effect partially mediated by probing of red flags, which increased the odds of contextualization by 337 % (95 % CI 287 % - 396 %). Contextual factors in the domains of Access to Care, Financial Situation, Emotional State, and Skills, Abilities, and Knowledge were most likely to be incorporated into plans and those in Competing Responsibilities least so. CONCLUSION: Multiple strategies prompt clinicians to consider patient life context in care planning, with varying effectiveness according to the patient context. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Future efforts should consider combining prompting interventions and provide clinicians with additional domain-specific resources.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.