Assessing Patients’ Perceptions of Clinician Communication: Acceptability of Brief Point-of-Care Surveys in Primary Care
Background Improving patient-centered (PC) communication is a priority in many healthcare organizations. Most PC communication metrics are distal to the care encounter and lack clear attribution, thereby reducing relevance for leaders and clinicians. Objective We assessed the acceptability of measur...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM 2020-10, Vol.35 (10), p.2990-2999 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 2999 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | 2990 |
| container_title | Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM |
| container_volume | 35 |
| creator | Dryden, Eileen M. Hyde, Justeen K. Wormwood, Jolie B. Wu, Juliet Calloway, Rodney Cutrona, Sarah L. Elwyn, Glyn Fix, Gemmae M. Orner, Michelle B. Shimada, Stephanie L. Bokhour, Barbara G. |
| description | Background
Improving patient-centered (PC) communication is a priority in many healthcare organizations. Most PC communication metrics are distal to the care encounter and lack clear attribution, thereby reducing relevance for leaders and clinicians.
Objective
We assessed the acceptability of measuring PC communication at the point-of-care.
Design
A brief patient survey was conducted immediately post-primary care appointments at one Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Audit-feedback reports were created for clinicians and discussed in qualitative interviews.
Participants
A total of 485 patients completed the survey. Thirteen interviews were conducted with clinicians and hospital leaders.
Main Measure(s)
Measures included collaboRATE (a 3-item tool measuring PC communication), a question about how well needs were met, and overall visit satisfaction. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to characterize the mean and distribution of collaboRATE scores and determine the proportion of patients giving clinicians a “top score” on each item. Associations among responses were examined. Interviews focused on the value of measuring PC communication and were analyzed using a framework approach.
Key Results
The proportion of patients giving PC communication “top scores” ranged from 41 to 92% for 16 clinicians who had ≥ 25 completed surveys. Among patients who gave “top scores” for PC communication, the odds of reporting that needs were “completely met” were 10.8 times higher (
p
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11606-020-06062-z |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7572926</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2557309082</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-d95e71e08e545213b90508cf0c3fcc4021bf8028bc15c3dc662a7fec9ee220ff3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kcuO1DAQRSMEYpqBH2CBLLFhEyi_YocFUhPxkkaiJWBtOW678ShtN3YyUveK3-D3-BIcMgyPBSuXfE_dqtKtqocYnmIA8Sxj3EBTA4EaSkHq061qhTnhNWatuF2tQEpWS0HZWXUv50sATAmRd6szSgSTlDWr6rTO2ebsww5t9OhtGPP3r9_QxiZjD6OPIaPoUDf44I3XAXVxv59KrWftOVqbGdO9H_x4nMmXyVuHNtGHsY6u7nSy6MOUruwxIx_QJvm9Tkc0_9-v7jg9ZPvg-j2vPr1-9bF7W1-8f_OuW1_Uhgk21tuWW4EtSMsZJ5j2LXCQxoGhzhgGBPdOApG9wdzQrWkaooWzprWWEHCOnlcvFt_D1O_t1pQbkx7UYVlFRe3V30rwn9UuXinBBWlJUwyeXBuk-GWyeVR7n40dBh1snLIijAIVsgVZ0Mf_oJdxSqGcpwjngkKBSKHIQpkUc07W3SyDQc3RqiVaVaJVP6NVp9L06M8zblp-ZVkAugC5SGFn0-_Z_7H9AehJsrw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2557309082</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessing Patients’ Perceptions of Clinician Communication: Acceptability of Brief Point-of-Care Surveys in Primary Care</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Dryden, Eileen M. ; Hyde, Justeen K. ; Wormwood, Jolie B. ; Wu, Juliet ; Calloway, Rodney ; Cutrona, Sarah L. ; Elwyn, Glyn ; Fix, Gemmae M. ; Orner, Michelle B. ; Shimada, Stephanie L. ; Bokhour, Barbara G.</creator><creatorcontrib>Dryden, Eileen M. ; Hyde, Justeen K. ; Wormwood, Jolie B. ; Wu, Juliet ; Calloway, Rodney ; Cutrona, Sarah L. ; Elwyn, Glyn ; Fix, Gemmae M. ; Orner, Michelle B. ; Shimada, Stephanie L. ; Bokhour, Barbara G.</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Improving patient-centered (PC) communication is a priority in many healthcare organizations. Most PC communication metrics are distal to the care encounter and lack clear attribution, thereby reducing relevance for leaders and clinicians.
Objective
We assessed the acceptability of measuring PC communication at the point-of-care.
Design
A brief patient survey was conducted immediately post-primary care appointments at one Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Audit-feedback reports were created for clinicians and discussed in qualitative interviews.
Participants
A total of 485 patients completed the survey. Thirteen interviews were conducted with clinicians and hospital leaders.
Main Measure(s)
Measures included collaboRATE (a 3-item tool measuring PC communication), a question about how well needs were met, and overall visit satisfaction. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to characterize the mean and distribution of collaboRATE scores and determine the proportion of patients giving clinicians a “top score” on each item. Associations among responses were examined. Interviews focused on the value of measuring PC communication and were analyzed using a framework approach.
Key Results
The proportion of patients giving PC communication “top scores” ranged from 41 to 92% for 16 clinicians who had ≥ 25 completed surveys. Among patients who gave “top scores” for PC communication, the odds of reporting that needs were “completely met” were 10.8 times higher (
p
< .001) and the odds of reporting being “very satisfied” with their care were 13.3 times higher (
p
< .001) compared with patients who did not give “top scores.” Interviewees found clinician-specific feedback useful; concerns included prioritizing this data when other measures are used to evaluate clinicians’ performance. Difficulties improving PC communication given organizational structures were noted. Recommendations for interventions included peer-to-peer education and mentoring by top-scoring clinicians.
Conclusions
Assessing provider communication at the point-of-care is acceptable and useful to clinicians. Challenges remain to properly incentivize and support the use of this data for improving PC communication.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0884-8734</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1525-1497</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-1497</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11606-020-06062-z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32748346</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Acceptability ; Collaboration ; Communication ; Feedback ; Health care facilities ; Humans ; Internal Medicine ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Original Research ; Patients ; Perception ; Point-of-Care Systems ; Polls & surveys ; Primary care ; Primary Health Care ; Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><ispartof>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM, 2020-10, Vol.35 (10), p.2990-2999</ispartof><rights>Society of General Internal Medicine (This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply) 2020</rights><rights>Society of General Internal Medicine (This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply) 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-d95e71e08e545213b90508cf0c3fcc4021bf8028bc15c3dc662a7fec9ee220ff3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-d95e71e08e545213b90508cf0c3fcc4021bf8028bc15c3dc662a7fec9ee220ff3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3732-3498</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7572926/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7572926/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32748346$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dryden, Eileen M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hyde, Justeen K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wormwood, Jolie B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Juliet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Calloway, Rodney</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cutrona, Sarah L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elwyn, Glyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fix, Gemmae M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Orner, Michelle B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shimada, Stephanie L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bokhour, Barbara G.</creatorcontrib><title>Assessing Patients’ Perceptions of Clinician Communication: Acceptability of Brief Point-of-Care Surveys in Primary Care</title><title>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM</title><addtitle>J GEN INTERN MED</addtitle><addtitle>J Gen Intern Med</addtitle><description>Background
Improving patient-centered (PC) communication is a priority in many healthcare organizations. Most PC communication metrics are distal to the care encounter and lack clear attribution, thereby reducing relevance for leaders and clinicians.
Objective
We assessed the acceptability of measuring PC communication at the point-of-care.
Design
A brief patient survey was conducted immediately post-primary care appointments at one Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Audit-feedback reports were created for clinicians and discussed in qualitative interviews.
Participants
A total of 485 patients completed the survey. Thirteen interviews were conducted with clinicians and hospital leaders.
Main Measure(s)
Measures included collaboRATE (a 3-item tool measuring PC communication), a question about how well needs were met, and overall visit satisfaction. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to characterize the mean and distribution of collaboRATE scores and determine the proportion of patients giving clinicians a “top score” on each item. Associations among responses were examined. Interviews focused on the value of measuring PC communication and were analyzed using a framework approach.
Key Results
The proportion of patients giving PC communication “top scores” ranged from 41 to 92% for 16 clinicians who had ≥ 25 completed surveys. Among patients who gave “top scores” for PC communication, the odds of reporting that needs were “completely met” were 10.8 times higher (
p
< .001) and the odds of reporting being “very satisfied” with their care were 13.3 times higher (
p
< .001) compared with patients who did not give “top scores.” Interviewees found clinician-specific feedback useful; concerns included prioritizing this data when other measures are used to evaluate clinicians’ performance. Difficulties improving PC communication given organizational structures were noted. Recommendations for interventions included peer-to-peer education and mentoring by top-scoring clinicians.
Conclusions
Assessing provider communication at the point-of-care is acceptable and useful to clinicians. Challenges remain to properly incentivize and support the use of this data for improving PC communication.</description><subject>Acceptability</subject><subject>Collaboration</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Feedback</subject><subject>Health care facilities</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Perception</subject><subject>Point-of-Care Systems</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Primary Health Care</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><issn>0884-8734</issn><issn>1525-1497</issn><issn>1525-1497</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kcuO1DAQRSMEYpqBH2CBLLFhEyi_YocFUhPxkkaiJWBtOW678ShtN3YyUveK3-D3-BIcMgyPBSuXfE_dqtKtqocYnmIA8Sxj3EBTA4EaSkHq061qhTnhNWatuF2tQEpWS0HZWXUv50sATAmRd6szSgSTlDWr6rTO2ebsww5t9OhtGPP3r9_QxiZjD6OPIaPoUDf44I3XAXVxv59KrWftOVqbGdO9H_x4nMmXyVuHNtGHsY6u7nSy6MOUruwxIx_QJvm9Tkc0_9-v7jg9ZPvg-j2vPr1-9bF7W1-8f_OuW1_Uhgk21tuWW4EtSMsZJ5j2LXCQxoGhzhgGBPdOApG9wdzQrWkaooWzprWWEHCOnlcvFt_D1O_t1pQbkx7UYVlFRe3V30rwn9UuXinBBWlJUwyeXBuk-GWyeVR7n40dBh1snLIijAIVsgVZ0Mf_oJdxSqGcpwjngkKBSKHIQpkUc07W3SyDQc3RqiVaVaJVP6NVp9L06M8zblp-ZVkAugC5SGFn0-_Z_7H9AehJsrw</recordid><startdate>20201001</startdate><enddate>20201001</enddate><creator>Dryden, Eileen M.</creator><creator>Hyde, Justeen K.</creator><creator>Wormwood, Jolie B.</creator><creator>Wu, Juliet</creator><creator>Calloway, Rodney</creator><creator>Cutrona, Sarah L.</creator><creator>Elwyn, Glyn</creator><creator>Fix, Gemmae M.</creator><creator>Orner, Michelle B.</creator><creator>Shimada, Stephanie L.</creator><creator>Bokhour, Barbara G.</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3732-3498</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201001</creationdate><title>Assessing Patients’ Perceptions of Clinician Communication: Acceptability of Brief Point-of-Care Surveys in Primary Care</title><author>Dryden, Eileen M. ; Hyde, Justeen K. ; Wormwood, Jolie B. ; Wu, Juliet ; Calloway, Rodney ; Cutrona, Sarah L. ; Elwyn, Glyn ; Fix, Gemmae M. ; Orner, Michelle B. ; Shimada, Stephanie L. ; Bokhour, Barbara G.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-d95e71e08e545213b90508cf0c3fcc4021bf8028bc15c3dc662a7fec9ee220ff3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Acceptability</topic><topic>Collaboration</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Feedback</topic><topic>Health care facilities</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Perception</topic><topic>Point-of-Care Systems</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Primary Health Care</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dryden, Eileen M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hyde, Justeen K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wormwood, Jolie B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Juliet</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Calloway, Rodney</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cutrona, Sarah L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elwyn, Glyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fix, Gemmae M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Orner, Michelle B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shimada, Stephanie L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bokhour, Barbara G.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dryden, Eileen M.</au><au>Hyde, Justeen K.</au><au>Wormwood, Jolie B.</au><au>Wu, Juliet</au><au>Calloway, Rodney</au><au>Cutrona, Sarah L.</au><au>Elwyn, Glyn</au><au>Fix, Gemmae M.</au><au>Orner, Michelle B.</au><au>Shimada, Stephanie L.</au><au>Bokhour, Barbara G.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessing Patients’ Perceptions of Clinician Communication: Acceptability of Brief Point-of-Care Surveys in Primary Care</atitle><jtitle>Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM</jtitle><stitle>J GEN INTERN MED</stitle><addtitle>J Gen Intern Med</addtitle><date>2020-10-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>2990</spage><epage>2999</epage><pages>2990-2999</pages><issn>0884-8734</issn><issn>1525-1497</issn><eissn>1525-1497</eissn><abstract>Background
Improving patient-centered (PC) communication is a priority in many healthcare organizations. Most PC communication metrics are distal to the care encounter and lack clear attribution, thereby reducing relevance for leaders and clinicians.
Objective
We assessed the acceptability of measuring PC communication at the point-of-care.
Design
A brief patient survey was conducted immediately post-primary care appointments at one Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Audit-feedback reports were created for clinicians and discussed in qualitative interviews.
Participants
A total of 485 patients completed the survey. Thirteen interviews were conducted with clinicians and hospital leaders.
Main Measure(s)
Measures included collaboRATE (a 3-item tool measuring PC communication), a question about how well needs were met, and overall visit satisfaction. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to characterize the mean and distribution of collaboRATE scores and determine the proportion of patients giving clinicians a “top score” on each item. Associations among responses were examined. Interviews focused on the value of measuring PC communication and were analyzed using a framework approach.
Key Results
The proportion of patients giving PC communication “top scores” ranged from 41 to 92% for 16 clinicians who had ≥ 25 completed surveys. Among patients who gave “top scores” for PC communication, the odds of reporting that needs were “completely met” were 10.8 times higher (
p
< .001) and the odds of reporting being “very satisfied” with their care were 13.3 times higher (
p
< .001) compared with patients who did not give “top scores.” Interviewees found clinician-specific feedback useful; concerns included prioritizing this data when other measures are used to evaluate clinicians’ performance. Difficulties improving PC communication given organizational structures were noted. Recommendations for interventions included peer-to-peer education and mentoring by top-scoring clinicians.
Conclusions
Assessing provider communication at the point-of-care is acceptable and useful to clinicians. Challenges remain to properly incentivize and support the use of this data for improving PC communication.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>32748346</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11606-020-06062-z</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3732-3498</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0884-8734 |
| ispartof | Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM, 2020-10, Vol.35 (10), p.2990-2999 |
| issn | 0884-8734 1525-1497 1525-1497 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7572926 |
| source | MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Acceptability Collaboration Communication Feedback Health care facilities Humans Internal Medicine Medicine Medicine & Public Health Original Research Patients Perception Point-of-Care Systems Polls & surveys Primary care Primary Health Care Surveys and Questionnaires |
| title | Assessing Patients’ Perceptions of Clinician Communication: Acceptability of Brief Point-of-Care Surveys in Primary Care |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-31T00%3A02%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessing%20Patients%E2%80%99%20Perceptions%20of%20Clinician%20Communication:%20Acceptability%20of%20Brief%20Point-of-Care%20Surveys%20in%20Primary%20Care&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20general%20internal%20medicine%20:%20JGIM&rft.au=Dryden,%20Eileen%20M.&rft.date=2020-10-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=2990&rft.epage=2999&rft.pages=2990-2999&rft.issn=0884-8734&rft.eissn=1525-1497&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11606-020-06062-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2557309082%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2557309082&rft_id=info:pmid/32748346&rfr_iscdi=true |