Effectiveness of intensive physician training in upfront agenda setting.

BACKGROUND: Patients want all their concerns heard, but physicians fear losing control of time and interrupt patients before all concerns are raised. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that when physicians were trained to use collaborative upfront agenda setting, visits would be no longer, more concerns would be identified, fewer concerns would surface late in the visit, and patients would report greater satisfaction and improved functional status. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Post-only randomized controlled trial using qualitative and quantitative methods. Six months after training (March 2004-March 2005) physician-patient encounters in two large primary care organizations were audio taped and patients (1460) and physicians (48) were surveyed. INTERVENTION: Experimental physicians received training in upfront agenda setting through the Establishing Focus Protocol, including two hours of training and two hours of coaching per week for four consecutive weeks. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes included agenda setting behaviors demonstrated during the early, middle, and late encounter phases, visit length, number of raised concerns, patient and physician satisfaction, trust and functional status. KEY RESULTS: Experimental physicians were more likely to make additional elicitations (p < 0.01) and their patients were more likely to indicate agenda completion in the early phase of the encounter (p < 0.01). Experimental group patients and physicians raised fewer concerns in the late encounter phase (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in visit length, total concerns addressed, patient or provider satisfaction, or patient trust and functional status CONCLUSION: Collaborative upfront agenda setting did not increase visit length or the number of problems addressed per visit but may reduce the likelihood of "oh by the way" concerns surfacing late in the encounter. However, upfront agenda setting is not sufficient to enhance patient satisfaction, trust or functional status. Training focused on physicians instead of teams and without regular reinforcement may have limited impact in changing visit content and time use.

Initial test of the seattle asthma severity and control questionnaire: a multidimensional assessment of asthma severity and control.

BACKGROUND: The Seattle Asthma Severity and Control Questionnaire (SASCQ) was designed as a short, sensitive, and quantitative measure of asthma severity, impairment, and risk. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the distribution of responses to the SASCQ in a diverse asthma population and to determine whether the questionnaire is associated with other measures of asthma severity and control. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 188 asthmatic patients was conducted in a large academic primary care network. Asthma severity was confirmed in a subgroup of 44 patients by means of an in-person interview and lung function measurement. RESULTS: The SASCQ score had a nearly normal distribution across the heterogeneous population and less of a floor effect than the number of asthma-free days. The SASCQ score showed a higher symptom burden in the mildest asthmatic patients compared with nonasthmatic controls. Asthma severity evaluated using the questionnaire was correlated with asthma severity evaluated by means of in-person interview and with controller medication class. The SASCQ score was associated with primary care visits for asthma, emergency department treatment for asthma, days missed from work, and confidence to control asthma symptoms; the associations between these measures of impairment and risk were all stronger for the SASCQ score than for asthma-free days. CONCLUSIONS: The SASCQ is a quantitative measure of asthma that accurately discriminates between established levels of asthma severity and that is associated with other measures of asthma control and risk.