Card studies for observational research in practice.

PURPOSE: Observational studies that collect patient-level survey data at the point-of-care are often called card studies. Card studies have been used to describe clinical problems, management, and outcomes in primary care for more than 30 years. In this article we describe 2 types of card studies and the methods for conducting them. METHODS: We undertook a descriptive review of card studies conducted in 3 Colorado practice-based research networks and several other networks throughout the United States. We summarized experiences of the State Networks of Colorado Ambulatory Practices and Partners (SNOCAP). RESULTS: Card studies can be designed to study specific conditions or care (clinicians complete a card when they encounter patients who meet inclusion criteria) and to determine trends and prevalence of conditions (clinicians complete a card on all patients seen during a period). Data can be collected from clinicians and patients and can be linked. CONCLUSIONS: Card studies provide cross-sectional descriptive data about clinical care, knowledge and behavior, perception of care, and prevalence of conditions. Card studies remain a robust method for describing primary care.

Lack of impact of direct-to-consumer advertising on the physician-patient encounter in primary care: a SNOCAP report.

PURPOSE: Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) has increased tremendously during the past decade. Recent changes in the DTCA environment may have affected its impact on clinical encounters. Our objective was to determine the rate of patient medication inquiries and their influence on clinical encounters in primary care. METHODS: Our methods consisted of a cross-sectional survey in the State Networks of Colorado Ambulatory Practices and Partners, a collaboration of 3 practice-based research networks. Clinicians completed a short patient encounter form after consecutive patient encounter for one-half or 1 full day. The main outcomes were the rate of inquiries, independent predictors of inquiries, and overall impact on clinical encounters. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-eight clinicians in 22 practices completed forms after 1,647 patient encounters. In 58 encounters (3.5%), the patient inquired about a specific new prescription medication. Community health center patients made fewer inquiries than private practice patients (1.7% vs 7.2%, P<.001). Predictors of inquiries included taking 3 or more chronic medications and the clinician being female. Most clinicians reported the requested medication was not their first choice for treatment (62%), but it was prescribed in 53% of the cases. Physicians interpreted the overall impact on the visit as positive in 24% of visits, neutral in 66%, and negative in 10%. CONCLUSIONS: Patient requests for prescription medication were uncommon overall, and even more so among patients in lower income groups. These requests were rarely perceived by clinicians as having a negative impact on the encounter. Future mixed methods studies should explore specific socioeconomic groups and reasons for clinicians' willingness to prescribe these medications.

Stopping the error cascade: a report on ameliorators from the ASIPS collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: To present a novel examination of how error cascades are stopped (ameliorated) before they affect patients. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of reported errors in primary care. SETTING: Over a three-year period, clinicians and staff in two practice-based research networks voluntarily reported medical errors to a primary care patient safety reporting system, Applied Strategies for Improving Patient Safety (ASIPS). The authors found a number of reports where the error was corrected before it had an adverse impact on the patient. RESULTS: Of 754 codeable reported events, 60 were classified as ameliorated events. In these events, a participant stopped the progression of the event before it reached or affected the patient. Ameliorators included doctors, nurses, pharmacists, diagnostic laboratories and office staff. Additionally, patients or family members may be ameliorators by recognising the error and taking action. Ameliorating an event after an initial error requires an opportunity to catch the error by systems, chance or attentiveness. Correcting the error before it affects the patient requires action either directed by protocols and systems or by vigilance, power to change course and perseverance on the part of the ameliorator. CONCLUSION: Despite numerous individual and systematic methods to prevent errors, a system to prevent all potential errors is not feasible. However, a more pervasive culture of safety that builds on simple acts in addition to more costly and complex electronic systems may improve patient outcomes. Medical staff and patients who are encouraged to be vigilant, ask questions and seek solutions may correct otherwise inevitable wrongs.

Patient perspectives of patient-provider communication after adverse events.

OBJECTIVE: To explore patient perceptions of patient-provider communication after an actual adverse medical event because prior patient error studies are rarely based on real situations. DESIGN: We conducted four patient focus groups using a semi-structured guide. We analyzed transcripts using an editing approach to identify themes. SETTING: Three sites in Colorado. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: participants were recruited from statewide post-injury program. Purposeful sampling began with patients in a geographic location; we contacted every other patient (up to 50). Twenty-two patients initially agreed to participate; 16 adults participated, representing 13 cases. RESULTS: Complex issues and processes were involved in resolution attempts. Effective communication was an important factor in whether professional relationships continued after an adverse event. The communication nature and quality influenced whether patients defined event as 'honest mistake' or 'error'. Two types of trauma (physical and emotional) were expected and found. A third (financial) uncovered and proved in some cases the most salient factor influencing patients' subsequent actions. Caring, honest, quick, personal, and repeated provider responses were linked to patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Provider communication timeliness and quality were important influences on patients' responses to adverse events. Confronting an adverse medical event collaboratively helped both patients and providers with patients' emotional, physical, and financial trauma and minimized the anger and frustration commonly experienced. Health organizations, providers, investigators, and policymakers should consider the patient experience when developing provider training or evaluating processes in patient resolution.

Patient preferences for notification of normal laboratory test results: a report from the ASIPS Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Many medical errors occur during the laboratory testing process, including lost test results. Patient inquiry concerning results often represents the final safety net for locating lost results. This qualitative study sought to identify, from a patient perspective, specific preferences and factors that influence the process of communicating normal (negative) laboratory test results to patients. METHODS: We conducted 30-minute guided interviews with 20 adult patients. Patients were recruited from two practice-based research networks in Colorado that were participating in a medical errors study. A semi-structured interview elicited the participant's experience with and preference for laboratory test result notification. Quantitative descriptive statistics were generated for demographic and preference data. Qualitative results were analyzed by a team of experienced qualitative researchers using multiple styles of qualitative analyses, including a template approach and an editing approach. RESULTS: Ninety percent of participants wanted to be notified of all tests results. Important issues related to notification included privacy, responsive and interactive feedback, convenience, timeliness, and provision of details. Telephone notification was preferred, followed by regular mail. Electronic notification was perceived as uncomfortable because it was not secure. While 65% preferred being notified by a provider, participants acknowledge that this may be impractical; thus, they wanted to be notified by someone knowledgeable enough to answer questions. Participants do not normally discuss their preferences for test result notification with their providers. CONCLUSION: Privacy, responsive and interactive feedback, convenience, and timeliness with detailed information may be critical for patient satisfaction and for improving patient safety, and are features that may be incorporated into emerging communication channels.

Exploring patient reactions to pen-tablet computers: a report from CaReNet.

PURPOSE: We wanted to study patient receptivity to using pen-tablet computers for collecting data in a practice-based research network. METHODS: We analyzed exit interviews and field notes collected by trained research assistants as part of a larger Colorado Research Network (CaReNet) study comparing pen-tablet and paper-pencil methods to collect data for the Primary Care Network Survey (PRINS). RESULTS: A total of 168 patients completed a patient exit interview after completion of the pen-tablet-based survey instrument. Analyses of these brief interviews and field notes indicated that patients had favorable reactions to using pen-tablet computers. The most common barriers were related to glitches in the technology; the voice recognition software was the most problematic, with patients (as well as clinicians) finding this feature to be frustrating. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were able and willing to use pen-tablet computers for completing forms within busy primary care offices. Increasing patient involvement in practice-based research may be even more practicable through the use of this novel technology, which can allow patient-directed data collection at a single point in time as well as longitudinally.