Search

Objective: Virtual care (VC) is an accepted modality of care delivery, and shared decision‐making (SDM) benefits patients with rheumatologic and chronic conditions (RCCs). Unfortunately, research suggests reduced quality of SDM during VC. This study explores the benefits and shortcomings of SDM regarding RCCs during VC with suggestions for optimally using VC during SDM. Methods: Following Stiggelbout's framework for SDM, we conducted focus groups of patients with RCCs and providers to understand their experiences with SDM during VC, probing for facilitating and challenging factors. We conducted content analysis of the transcripts, defining themes, and inductively reasoned to identify relationships among themes. We summarized the facilitators, barriers, and opportunities for improving SDM during VC that participants proposed. Results: Virtual SDM shares several similarities with in‐person practice, as both draw upon trusting patient‐provider relationships, following the same general steps, and relying on effective communication. VC presents solutions for known barriers to in‐person SDM, expanding time for making decisions and access to care. Technology and virtual health systems introduce new barriers to SDM, and participants list opportunities for overcoming these concerns. Conclusion: VC is a tool that can enhance and even support superior SDM compared with in‐person visits when implemented successfully, a condition requiring the development of nuanced skills to correctly identify when and how to best use VC for SDM as well as technology and health care structures that integrate SDM into VC. Therefore, patients, providers, insurance carriers, and policy makers all contribute to the success of SDM among RCCs during VC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background There are no empirically-grounded criteria or tools to define or benchmark the quality of outpatient clinical documentation. Outpatient clinical notes document care, communicate treatment plans and support patient safety, medical education, medico-legal investigations and reimbursement. Accurately describing and assessing quality of clinical documentation is a necessary improvement in an increasingly team-based healthcare delivery system. In this paper we describe the quality of outpatient clinical notes from the perspective of multiple stakeholders. Methods Using purposeful sampling for maximum diversity, we conducted focus groups and individual interviews with clinicians, nursing and ancillary staff, patients, and healthcare administrators at six federal health care facilities between 2009 and 2011. All sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using open, axial and selective coding. Results The 163 participants included 61 clinicians, 52 nurse/ancillary staff, 31 patients and 19 administrative staff. Three organizing themes emerged: 1) characteristics of quality in clinical notes, 2) desired elements within the clinical notes and 3) system supports to improve the quality of clinical notes. We identified 11 codes to describe characteristics of clinical notes, 20 codes to describe desired elements in quality clinical notes and 11 codes to describe clinical system elements that support quality when writing clinical notes. While there was substantial overlap between the aspects of quality described by the four stakeholder groups, only clinicians and administrators identified ease of translation into billing codes as an important characteristic of a quality note. Only patients rated prioritization of their medical problems as an aspect of quality. Nurses included care and education delivered to the patient, information added by the patient, interdisciplinary information, and infection alerts as important content. Conclusions Perspectives of these four stakeholder groups provide a comprehensive description of quality in outpatient clinical documentation. The resulting description of characteristics and content necessary for quality notes provides a research-based foundation for assessing the quality of clinical documentation in outpatient health care settings.

Family physicians commonly care for older patients with disabilities. Many of these patients need help maintaining a therapeutic home environment to preserve their comfort and independence. Patients often have little time to decide how to address the limitations of newly-acquired disabilities. Physicians can provide patients with general recommendations in home modification after careful history and assessment. Universal design features, such as one-story living, no-step entries, and wide hallways and doors, are key adaptations for patients with physical disabilities. Home adaptations for patients with dementia include general safety measures such as grab bars and door alarms, and securing potentially hazardous items, such as cleaning supplies and medications. Improved lighting and color contrast, enlarged print materials, and vision aids can assist patients with limited vision. Patients with hearing impairments may benefit from interventions that provide supplemental visual and vibratory cues and alarms. Although funding sources are available, home modification is often a nonreimbursed expense. However, sufficient home modifications may allow the patient and caregivers to safely remain in the home without transitioning to a long-term care facility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several letters to the editor are presented in response to article in the previous issues including the case of a 43-year-old man with recurrent ischemic events, the case of a 64-year-old man who suffers from acute interstitial nephritis, and the article "Homocysteine level and coronary heart disease incidence: A systematic review and meta-analysis," by L. L. Humphrey, R. Fu, K. Rogers, M. Freeman, and M. Helfand.

Evaluating and improving the practice of family-centered care involves planning the evaluation effort collaboratively with families, gathering information from a variety of audiences, investigating the different arenas of family-centered care, following growth in family-centered practice over time, using a variety of evaluation approaches, and integrating evaluation with efforts to change toward family-centered approaches to care. Resources available to guide the evaluation effort include guidelines for reviewing written materials in a unit, program, clinic, or practice; written surveys and checklists; guidelines for focus groups or interviews; suggestions for using health care scenarios to gather information about family-centered approaches to care; and questions for nurses to use to reflect on their own practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]