RESUMEN

We analyzed (1) the correspondence of patient and clinician perceived patient involvement in decision making and ratings made by independent observer's independent ratings, as well as (2), factors associated with patient-perceived involvement, among patients seeking hand specialty care. During 63 visits, the patient, their hand specialist, and 2 independent observers each rated patient involvement in decision making using the 9-item shared decision-making questionnaire for patients and clinicians, and the 5-item observing patient involvement scale (OPTION-5). We also measured health literacy (Newest Vital Sign), patient and visit characteristics (gender, age, race, years of education, occupation, marital status, and family present). There was no correlation (ρ = 0.17; P = .17) between patient (median 42, IQR 36-44.5) and clinician (38, IQR 35-43) ratings of patient involvement in decision making. Independently rated patient involvement correlated moderately with a specialist (ρ = 0.35, P <.01), but not patient (ρ = 0.22, P = .08) ratings. The finding that patient perception of their involvement in decision making has little or no relationship to independently rated clinician communication effectiveness and effort, suggests that other aspects of the encounter-such as empathy and trust-may merit investigation as mediators of the patient agency.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making aims to combine what matters most to a patient with clinician expertise to develop a personalized health strategy. It is a dialogue between patient and clinician in which preferences are expressed, misconceptions reoriented, and available options are considered. To improve patient involvement, it would help to know more about specific barriers and facilitators of patient-clinician communication. Health literacy, the ability to obtain, process, and understand health information, may affect patient participation in decision-making. If the patient is quiet, deferential, and asks few questions, the clinician may assume a more paternalistic style. A patient with greater agency and engagement could be the catalyst for shared decisions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We assessed (1) whether effective clinician communication and effort is related to patient health literacy, and (2) if there are other factors associated with effective clinician communication and effort. METHODS: We combined a prospective, cross-sectional cohort of 86 audio-recorded visits of adult patients seeking specialist hand care for a new problem at an urban community hospital in the Netherlands with a cohort of 72 audio-recorded hand surgery visits from a tertiary hospital in the United States collected for a prior study. The American cohort represents a secondary use of data from a set of patients from a separate study using audio-recorded visits and administering similar questionnaires that assessed different endpoints. In both cohorts, adult patients seeking specialist hand care for a new problem were screened. In total, 165 patients were initially screened, of which 96% (158) participated. Eight percent (13) of visits were excluded since the final diagnosis remained unclear, 8% (12) since it was not the first consultation for the current problem, 5% (8) in which only one treatment option was available, and < 1% (1) since there was a language barrier. A total of 123 patients were analyzed, 68 from the Netherlands and 55 from the United States. The Newest Vital Sign (NVS) health literacy test, validated in both English and Dutch, measures the ability to use health information and is based on a nutrition label from an ice cream container. It was used to assess patient health literacy on a scale ranging from 0 (low) to 6 (high). The 5-item Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION5) instrument is commonly used to assess the quality of patient-clinician discussion of options. Scores may be influenced by clinician effort to involve patients in decision-making as well as patient engagement and agency. Each item is scored from 0 (no effort) to 4 (maximum effort), with a total maximum score of 20. Two independent raters reached agreement (kappa value 0.8; strong agreement), after which all recordings were scored by one investigator. Visit duration and patient questions were assessed using the audio recordings. Patients had a median (interquartile range) age of 54 (38 to 66) years, 50% were men, 89% were white, 66% had a nontraumatic diagnosis, median (IRQ) years of education was 16 (12 to 18) years, and median (IQR) health literacy score was 5 (2 to 6). Median (IQR) visit duration was 9 (7 to 12) minutes. Cohorts did not differ in important ways. The number of visits per clinician ranged from 14 to 29, and the mean overall communication effectiveness and effort score for the visits was low (8.5 ± 4.2 points of 20 points). A multivariate linear regression model was used to assess factors associated with communication effectiveness and effort. RESULTS: There was no correlation between health literacy and clinician communication effectiveness and effort (r = 0.087 [95% CI -0.09 to 0.26]; p = 0.34), nor was there a difference in means (SD) when categorizing health literacy as inadequate (7.8 ± 3.8 points) and adequate (8.9 ± 4.5 points; mean difference 1.0 [95% CI -2.6 to 0.54]; p = 0.20). After controlling for potential confounding variables such as gender, patient questions, and health literacy, we found that longer visit duration (per 1 minute increase: r2 = 0.31 [95% CI -0.14 to 0.48]; p < 0.001), clinician 3 (compared with clinician 1: OR 33 [95% CI 4.8 to 229]; p < 0.001) and clinician 5 (compared with clinician 1: OR 11 [95% CI 1.5 to 80]; p = < 0.02) were independently associated with more effective communication and effort, whereas clinician 6 was associated with less effective communication and effort (compared with clinician 1: OR 0.08 [95% CI 0.01 to 0.75]; p = 0.03). Clinicians' communication strategies (the clinician variable on its own) accounted for 29% of the variation in communication effectiveness and effort, longer visit duration accounted for 11%, and the full model accounted for 47% of the variation (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The finding that the overall low mean communication effectiveness and effort differed between clinicians and was not influenced by patient factors including health literacy suggests clinicians may benefit from training that moves them away from a teaching or lecturing style where patients receive rote directives regarding their health. Clinicians can learn to adapt their communication to specific patient values and needs using a guiding rather than directing communication style (motivational interviewing).Level of Evidence Level II, prognostic study.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To evaluate the intraobserver and interobserver variability in diagnosing scapholunate dissociation (SLD) by wrist cineradiography. METHODS: A musculoskeletal radiologist, hand surgeon, and trauma surgeon assessed the records of 50 consecutive wrist cineradiographies performed in 25 patients. Fluoroscopy was performed on the unaffected and affected wrist and consisted of radiographer-controlled passive flexion-extension and passive radial-ulnar deviation in both posteroanterior and lateral projections. To determine the intraobserver variability, the 3 reviewers reassessed all wrist cineradiographies 6 months after their first assessment. The kappa coefficient for interobserver agreement was calculated using the jackknife method. The Cohen kappa was used to assess intraobserver variability. RESULTS: The interobserver variability for diagnosing SLD by cineradiography was excellent (κ = 0.84). The intraobserver variability for the hand surgeon was excellent (κ = 0.80), and was good for the radiologist (κ = 0.72) and the trauma surgeon (κ = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Cineradiography is a promising and helpful, noninvasive tool for diagnosing SLD. It is widely available and has relatively low costs. Conventional radiographs remain essential in the primary workup for suspected SLD. However, we recommend cineradiography when an SLD is clinically suspected. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic III.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to compare the diagnostic accuracy, subjective image quality and clinical consequences of 3D-fluoroscopy with standard imaging modalities (2D-fluoroscopy, X-ray or CT) during reduction and fixation of intra-articular upper and lower extremity fractures. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane library. In total 673 articles were identified (up to March 2012). The 19 included studies described patients/cadavers with intra-articular upper/lower extremity fractures and compared 3D-fluoroscopy to standard imaging. The study was performed in accordance with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) guidelines. Diagnostic accuracy was defined by the quality of fracture reduction or implant position and, if possible, expressed as sensitivity and specificity; subjective image quality was determined by the quality of depiction of bone or implants; clinical consequences were defined as corrections in reduction or implant position following 3D-fluoroscopy. RESULTS: Ten cadaver- and nine clinical studies were included. A meta-analysis was not possible, because studies used different scoring protocols to express diagnostic accuracy and reported incomplete data. Based on the individual studies, diagnostic accuracy of 3D-fluoroscopy was better than 2D-fluoroscopy and X-ray, but similar to CT-scanning. Subjective image quality of 3D-fluoroscopy was inferior compared to all other imaging modalities. In 11-40% of the operations additional corrections were performed after 3D-fluoroscopy, while the necessity for these corrections were not recognized based on 2D-fluoroscopic images. CONCLUSIONS: Although subjective image quality is rated inferior compared to other imaging modalities, intra-operative use of 3D-fluoroscopy is a helpful diagnostic tool for improving the quality of reduction and implant position in intra-articular fractures.

Asunto(s)