No abstract

SummaryPrevious communication research in general medical practice has shown that effective communication enhances patient compliance, satisfaction and medical outcome. It is expected that communication is equally important in anaesthesia, since patients often suffer from anxiety and lack of knowledge about anaesthetic procedures. However, little is known about the nature of communication during routine anaesthetic visits. The present study of 57 authentic anaesthetic visits provides the first results on the structure and content of communication in the pre-operative setting using the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS). Patient-centred communication behaviours of anaesthetists and the extent of patient involvement were particularly investigated. From the 57 pre-operative visits, 18 267 utterances were coded. The mean (SD) [range] duration of the visit was 16.1 (7.8) [3.7-42.7] min. Anaesthetists provided 169 (68) and patients 153 (82) utterances per visit (53.5% vs. 46.5%). Physician and patient gender had no impact on the distribution of utterances and the duration of the visit. Conversation mainly focussed on biomedical issues with little psychosocial discussion (< 0.1% of all anaesthetist utterances). However, anaesthetists quite frequently used emotional comments toward patients (7%) and involved them in the conversation. The use of facilitators, open questions and emotional statements by the anaesthetist correlated with high patient involvement. The amount of patient participation in anaesthetic decisions was assessed with the Observing Patient Involvement Scale (OPTION). Compared with general practitioners, anaesthetists offered more opportunities to discuss treatment options (mean (SD) OPTION score 26.8 (16.8) vs. 16.8 (7.7) postgraduate training for specialists [6]. In the past, communication skills training as a component of formal training was only emphasised for general practitioners and internists, but the importance of such non-technical skills is now also recognised in anaesthesia and critical care medicine [7][8][9][10][11][12]. For this purpose, simulator-based modular human factor and communication training has recently been made available to anaesthetists [13].Since pre-operative anxiety is often directed towards the anaesthetic itself [14], an anaesthetist is best able to decrease a patient's anxiety [15]. Our aim is to improve the anaesthetist's ability to elicit and respond to the patient's concerns and questions during the pre-operative anaesthetic visit. In order to define more precisely those skills that would best help an anaesthetist to become a more professional communicator, the current study investigates the anaesthetist-patient interaction in 57 videotaped real-life pre-operative visits using the standard instrument Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) [16]. In this system, each statement (utterance) by either physician or patient is coded into mutually exclusive physician or patient categories. While RIAS has been extensively used and validated in general practice [17]...

Background: Even though there is an increasing number of studies on the efficacy of Internet-based interventions (IBI) for depression, experimental trials on the benefits of added guidance by clinicians are scarce and inconsistent. This study compared the efficacy of semistandardized feedback provided by psychologists with fully standardized feedback in IBI. Methods: Participants with mild-to-moderate depression (n = 1,089, 66% female) from the client pool of a health insurance company participated in a cognitive-behavioral IBI targeting depression over 6 weeks. Individuals were randomized to weekly semistandardized e-mail feedback from psychologists (individual counseling; IC) or to automated, standardized feedback where a psychologist could be contacted on demand (CoD). The contents and tasks were identical across conditions. The primary outcome was depression; secondary outcomes included anxiety, rumination, and well-being. Outcomes were assessed before and after the intervention and 3, 6, and 12 months later. Changes in outcomes were evaluated using latent change score modeling. Results: Both interventions yielded large pre-post effects on depression (Beck Depression Inventory-II: d_IC = 1.53, d_CoD = 1.37; Patient Health Questionnaire-9: d_IC = 1.20, d_CoD = 1.04), as well as significant improvements of all other outcome measures. The effects remained significant after 3, 6, and 12 months. The groups differed with regard to attrition (IC: 17.3%, CoD: 25.8%, p = 0.001). Between-group effects were statistically nonsignificant across outcomes and measurement occasions. Conclusion: Adding semistandardized guidance in IBI for depression did not prove to be more effective than fully standardized feedback on primary and secondary outcomes, but it had positive effects on attrition.

No abstract