Quantifying Patient-Physician Communication and Perceptions of Risk During Admissions for Possible Acute Coronary Syndromes

Newman, David H.; Ackerman, Brian P.; Kraushar, Matthew L.; Lederhandler, Margo; Masri, Amal; Стариков, А. С.; Tsao, Daisy; Meyers, H. Pendell; Shah, Kaushal

doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.01.027

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the ADP provides an estimate of the patient's risk of 30‐day MACE, it may also be used to inform patients. Patients tend to overestimate their risk, and when informed of having a low risk of ACS often prefer outpatient follow‐up . Careful discharge information recommending patients to return if their symptoms do not resolve will likely also catch the few UA patients missed by the ADP and prevent harm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A 0‐Hour/1‐Hour Protocol for Safe, Early Discharge of Chest Pain Patients

Mokhtari¹,

Lindahl

Schiopu³

et al. 2017

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A 0‐Hour/1‐Hour Protocol for Safe, Early Discharge of Chest Pain Patients

Mokhtari¹,

Lindahl

Schiopu³

et al. 2017

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If many hospitalized patients prefer physicians to make decisions, then the minimum standard we might expect for physicians to respect patient autonomy would be for patients to fully understand their diagnosis and treatment plan. Yet studies have consistently shown that patients do not understand the majority of what has happened to them in the hospital, and that physicians overestimate patient understanding [5][6][7][8].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Communication behaviors and patient autonomy in hospital care: A qualitative study

Berger

Boss

Beach

2017

Patient Education and Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TBackground: Little is known about how hospitalized patients share decisions with physicians. Methods: We conducted an observational study of patient-doctor communication on an inpatient medicine service among 18 hospitalized patients and 9 physicians. A research assistant (RA) approached newly hospitalized patients and their physicians before morning rounds and obtained consent. The RA audio recorded morning rounds, and then separately interviewed both patient and physician. Coding was done using integrated analysis. Results: Most patients were white (61%) and half were female. Most physicians were male (66%) and of Southeast Asian descent (66%). All physicians explained the plan of care to the patients; most believed that their patient understood. However, many patients did not. Physicians rarely asked the patient for their opinion. In all those cases, the decision had been made previously by the doctors. No decisions were made with the patient. Patients sometimes disagreed. Conclusions: Shared decision-making may not be the norm in hospital care. Although physicians do explain treatment plans, many hospitalized patients do not understand enough to share in decisions. When patients do assert their opinion, it can result in conflict. Practice implications: Some hospitalized patients are interested in discussing treatment. Improving hospital communication can foster patient autonomy.

show abstract

“…Risk agreement within 10% occurred in only 36% of cases. 25 This may indicate the need to improve communication of risk within ED consultations.…”

Section: Clinical Consultation Skillsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Understanding team, interpersonal and situational factors is essential for routine communication with patients in the emergency department (ED): A scoping literature review and formation of the ‘T.IP.S’ conceptual framework

Graham

Smith

2016

Journal of Communication in Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Most patient-provider communication skills frameworks focus on interpersonal behaviours within the context of a single consultation. In contrast, Emergency Department (ED) patient encounters consist of many new interactions with different professionals over a short time period. Additionally, ED care often occurs in a chaotic, unpredictable, and overcrowded environment. While these factors are recognised to present a major challenge to effective patient-provider communication in the ED, there is no accepted framework to guide how professionals or teams should approach and optimise communication with patients in the ED. Objectives This review aims to identify the current literature relating to routine patient provider communication processes in the ED and synthesise a new framework to enhance understanding of routine patient-provider communication processes in the ED. Methods Searches of Scopus, Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL were conducted to identify literature written between 2000 and 2016 using the terms ((communication OR consultation OR health literacy) AND (patient) AND (emergency medicine OR emergency department)). Results Fifty-five relevant articles were selected for final inclusion. A qualitative synthesis was conducted and content interpreted as either facilitating factors or obstacles to routine ED communication were coded and grouped into three overarching

show abstract

Quantifying Patient-Physician Communication and Perceptions of Risk During Admissions for Possible Acute Coronary Syndromes

Cited by 15 publications

References 16 publications

A 0‐Hour/1‐Hour Protocol for Safe, Early Discharge of Chest Pain Patients

A 0‐Hour/1‐Hour Protocol for Safe, Early Discharge of Chest Pain Patients

Communication behaviors and patient autonomy in hospital care: A qualitative study

Understanding team, interpersonal and situational factors is essential for routine communication with patients in the emergency department (ED): A scoping literature review and formation of the ‘T.IP.S’ conceptual framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About