In:
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science (PLoS), Vol. 16, No. 10 ( 2021-10-18), p. e0257656-
Abstract:
The impact of the quality of discharge communication between physicians and their patients is critical on patients’ health outcomes. Nevertheless, low recall of information given to patients at discharge from emergency departments (EDs) is a well-documented problem. Therefore, we investigated the outcomes and related benefits of two different communication strategies: Physicians were instructed to either use empathy (E) or information structuring (S) skills hypothesizing superior recall by patients in the S group. Methods For the direct comparison of two communication strategies at discharge, physicians were cluster-randomized to an E or a S skills training. Feasibility was measured by training completion rates. Outcomes were measured in patients immediately after discharge, after 7, and 30 days. Primary outcome was patients’ immediate recall of discharge information. Secondary outcomes were feasibility of training implementation, patients’ adherence to recommendations and satisfaction, as well as the patient-physician relationship. Results Of 117 eligible physicians, 80 (68.4%) completed the training. Out of 256 patients randomized to one of the two training groups (E: 146 and S: 119) 196 completed the post-discharge assessment. Patients’ immediate recall of discharge information was superior in patients in the S-group vs. E-group. Patients in the S-group adhered to more recommendations within 30 days ( p = .002), and were more likely to recommend the physician to family and friends (p = .021). No differences were found on other assessed outcome domains. Conclusions and practice Implications Immediate recall and subsequent adherence to recommendations were higher in the S group. Feasibility was shown by a 69.6% completion rate of trainings. Thus, trainings of discharge information structuring are feasible and improve patients’ recall, and may therefore improve quality of care in the ED.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
1932-6203
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0257656
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0257656.g001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0257656.g002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0257656.t001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0257656.t002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0257656.t003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0257656.t004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0257656.s001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0257656.s002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0257656.s003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0257656.s004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0257656.s005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0257656.s006
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0257656.s007
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0257656.s008
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0257656.r001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0257656.r002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0257656.r003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0257656.r004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0257656.r005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0257656.r006
Language:
English
Publisher:
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Publication Date:
2021
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2267670-3
Bookmarklink