Improving communication and patient information recall via a question prompt list: randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient-surgeon communication is an important component of the success of a consultation and is known to impact patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate whether a document called a question prompt list, containing suggested questions that a patient may like to ask their doctor, improved communication. METHODS: A prospective RCT was conducted from October 2021 to October 2022 at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, Australia. Patients 16 years or older, seeing a general surgeon for a pre-surgical consultation, not requiring a translator, were randomized to receive a question prompt list (intervention) or standard care without a question prompt list (control). The primary outcomes were number of questions asked, talk time, and mutual eye gaze. Secondary outcomes were patient recall of information, anxiety, and consultation duration. Randomization was achieved using a computer program, with allocation concealment by opaque sequentially numbered envelopes. Patients were blinded to study group; surgeons were aware of study group, but blinded to outcomes. RESULTS: Patients (59) were randomly allocated to receive the question prompt list (31) or to the control group (28). A patient from the intervention group withdrew before consultation, resulting in 58 patients being included in the analysis. In the question prompt list consultations, 24 per cent more questions were asked (incidence rate ratio = 1.25, 95 per cent c.i. 1.10 to 1.42; P = 0.001). The intervention group recalled 9 per cent more items than the control group (incidence rate ratio = 1.09, 95 per cent c.i. 1.02 to 1.17; P = 0.012). The control group were 26 per cent less likely to correctly recall information about surgical treatment (OR = 0.26, 95 per cent c.i. 0.10 to 0.68; P = 0.006). No statistically significant differences between study arms for talk time, mutual eye gaze, anxiety, or consultation duration were demonstrated. CONCLUSION: The question prompt list was associated with increased question asking and greater patient recall of medical information. It did not increase patient anxiety or consultation duration. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12623000089639 (http://www.ANZCTR.org.au).

Improving Surgical Excellence: Can Coaching Surgeons Improve Patient Engagement?

INTRODUCTION: Non-technical skills complement technical skills in surgeons to provide best possible care for patients. The former is essential to promote patient engagement. Coaching has been introduced to surgeons as a method to improve non-technical skills. We aimed to investigate the impact of coaching for surgeons on patient engagement in the outpatient consultation setting. METHODS: This was a single-centre cohort study conducted in South Australia. Consultant surgeons, suitable coaches, and patients were recruited. Coaches underwent further training by a human factors psychologist on being an effective coach. Outpatient consultations were recorded in an audio-visual format and analysed by investigators. Patient talking time, mutual eye gaze between surgeon and patient, and number of questions asked by the patient were measured as outcomes for patient engagement. RESULTS: 182 patients, 12 surgeons, and 4 coaches participated in the study. Each surgeon underwent 3 coaching sessions, 5 to 6 weeks apart. There were 62 pre-coaching patient consultations, 63 patient consultations after one coaching session, and 57 patient consultations after two coaching sessions. The mean talking time of the patient increased significantly after a single coaching session (P < 0.05) without making significant difference to the total consultation time (p = 0.76). Coaching sessions did not have a significant effect on mutual eye gaze or mean number of questions asked by the patient. CONCLUSION: Coaching of non-technical skills for surgeons appears to objectively improve patient engagement during the outpatient consultation. This would suggest that tailored coaching programs should be developed and delivered to surgeons to improve care delivery.

Patient prompts in surgical consultations: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Quality communication has been found to improve patient outcomes. Despite good communication, information may still be forgotten or misunderstood by patients. A question prompt list is a document to help patients ask questions. Question prompt lists are well perceived by various stakeholders and have been found of benefit to patients. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of patient question prompting documents in surgical outpatient consultations. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO were searched on September 13, 2021. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed in duplicate. We included English studies that investigated the use of question prompt lists and their influence on patient outcomes. We excluded studies that did not have a comparator group. Because of heterogeneity of outcome measures, meta-analysis was precluded. This study was registered with PROSPERO (identification number: CRD42021279058). RESULTS: Searches identified 107 suitable studies; however, only 7 studies met eligibility criteria. All included studies were randomized controlled trials, but the designs of studies were heterogenous. Three out of 7 included studies were at a high risk of bias. The included studies investigated different outcomes that could be broadly categorized into 5 themes: consultation characteristics, patient engagement, patient well-being, information exchange, and patient satisfaction. None of the studies looked at patient recall of information. Aside from length of consultation, the overall results for each category were mixed. CONCLUSION: Current literature has suggested that question prompt lists are a low-risk intervention that could improve patient engagement and patient-doctor communication; however, there is limited evidence at present to conclusively promote their usage in perioperative surgical consultations.

Can Checklists Solve Our Ward Round Woes? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Accurate and thorough surgical ward round documentation is crucial for maintaining quality clinical care. Accordingly, checklists have been proposed to improve ward round documentation. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the literature investigating the use of checklists to improve surgical ward round documentation. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched on August 16, 2021. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed in duplicate. We included English studies that investigated the use of checklists during ward rounds in various surgical subspecialties compared to routine care, where the rates of documentation were reported as outcomes. We excluded studies that used checklists in outpatient, non-surgical, or pediatric settings. Due to heterogeneity of outcome measures, meta-analysis was precluded. This study was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021273735) and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PRISMA 2020) reporting guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 206 studies were identified, only 9 were suitable for inclusion. All included studies were single-center observational studies, spanning across seven surgical specialties. Rates of documentation on 4-23 parameters were reported. Documentation for all measured outcomes improved in 8/9 studies; however, statistical analyses were not included. There was a high risk of bias due to the nature of observational studies. CONCLUSION: Ward round checklists can serve as a useful tool to improve inpatient care and safety. Currently, there is no high-level evidence showing the effectiveness of checklists on ward round documentation. The synthesis of results indicates that further high-quality research is imperative.

Do you have any questions? An analysis of question asking patterns in surgical outpatient consultations.

BACKGROUND: Patient centred communication ensures patients are well informed and educated, which is vital to providing the best care possible. By asking questions, patients can better understand their disease and make informed decisions regarding their health journey. We aimed to investigate factors that affect question asking behaviours in surgical outpatient consultations and to determine the typical question-asking by doctors, patients, and their companions. METHODS: This is an observational cross-sectional study, where 182 video recordings of surgical consultations in the surgical outpatient setting at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 3472 questions were asked. Most questions were asked by the surgeon, followed by the patient, and if present, their companion. Pre-surgical consultations resulted in the most questions asked by the patients, compared to post-surgical or follow-up consultations. When companions were present, patients asked more questions in consultants regarding malignant conditions. Interruptions increased the number of questions asked by the patient and their companion. Questions were commonly asked to clarify information given by the surgeon and often regarded the cause of the illness and the timing of the next step in disease management. CONCLUSION: Patients are generally interested in their health and ask questions during consultations. Companions have a positive effect on patient question asking behaviour and their presence in surgical consultations should be encouraged. Surgeons should develop strategies to encourage question asking and could review their own behaviours via surgical coaching and video review.

The doctor will see you now: eye gaze, conversation and patient engagement in the surgical outpatient clinic. An Australian observational cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Surgical outpatient consultations are demanding for the surgeon and patients without a definite formula for success. Various factors have been identified regarding factors that influence patient satisfaction and engagement. We aimed to examine the modern-day surgical outpatient consultation and report on these factors. METHODS: An observational cross-sectional study was performed by reviewing video recordings of 182 surgical consultations by 12 surgeons at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, South Australia, Australia. RESULTS: The mean consultation time was 12.3 min, with pre-surgical consultations being the longest. There were 107 consultations for benign conditions (58%). Proportionally, the consultant spoke most (51.9% of total consultation time), followed by the patient (19.5%) and then companion (8.2%). Forty-eight (26.4%) patients brought a companion to the clinic but monopolisation of the consultation by the companion was rare. When a companion was present, there was more mutual eye gaze between the consultant and the patient. Interruptions were present in 23.6% of consultations and were associated with a significant increase of the length of the consultation. Table positioning did not seem to affect the dynamics of the outpatient consultation. CONCLUSION: Companions are highly valuable for promoting patient engagement and their presence should be encouraged in surgical outpatients. Interruptions should be kept to a minimum to avoid unnecessary delays. Further studies should be conducted to investigate the effect of companions, interruptions and table positioning during a consultation on patient outcomes.