Keywords
questionnaires - patient engagement - documentation - workflow - outcomes
Background and Significance
Background and Significance
Medical, social, and financial barriers faced by patients with diabetes may contribute
to poor adherence to self-management plans.[1] Poor adherence, in turn, may result in complications such as renal, cardiovascular,
and neurological diseases, vision loss, and premature mortality.[2]
[3]
[4] Improving adherence to diabetes self-management requires identification of barriers,[2]
[5] which may be time-consuming and difficult during short clinical encounters. Barrier
identification can also be limited due to patient embarrassment, lack of awareness,
communication difficulties, and other constraints.[5] Research has demonstrated that as adherence increases, glycohemoglobin (A1c) decreases.[6] The landmark Diabetes Control and Complications Trial showed that lower A1cs were
associated with improved microvascular outcomes in patients.[7] Moreover, previous work has shown that type 2 diabetes patients involved in an online
disease management program achieved greater decreases in A1c at 6 months compared
with patients receiving the usual care regimen.[8] More patients in the intervention group achieved clinically meaningful A1c improvements
versus the usual care group as well.[8]
While tools like Instant Medical History[9]
[10] have facilitated clinical encounters in acute care settings and electronic questionnaires
have been successfully used in outpatient pediatrics settings,[11] there is a paucity of evidence on BVQs in managing chronic diseases such as type
1 diabetes. In an adult diabetes population, patient submission of diabetes care plans
electronically prior to clinic encounters resulted in a greater likelihood of medical
regimen adjustment at the clinical encounter, suggesting the online submission reduced
barriers to medication change at the visit thus improving patient care.[12] Determining strategies to capture information relative to barrier mitigation and
adherence strategies is also important for follow-up to be effective. Computer-generated
report systems with coded and free-text language have proved to be valuable in health
care management and chronic disease follow-up in thyroid disease patients previously.[13] Therefore, deploying BVQs that generate summary notes for physicians may be beneficial
in the care of pediatric diabetes patients as well. It is essential that providers
think beyond the current visit in chronic disease management as they are limited to
a few brief patient encounters yearly to effect an outcome.
Objectives
In this exploratory study, we developed a before visit questionnaire (BVQ) as an electronic tool to collect information on interval history and adherence
barriers, make information available to providers, and automatically generate a summary
for the visit note. Our aims were to (1) develop a BVQ tool, (2) use it in patient
encounters in a pediatric diabetes clinic, and (3) evaluate its impact on barrier
and adherence-related communication between parents and providers. We hypothesized
that BVQs can improve communication about barriers and decrease documentation-related
work. We also hypothesized that a tool that decreased provider effort to collect and
document the interval history would improve documentation and result in more barriers
being addressed.
Methods
Subjects and Setting
Patient and Parent Participants
Participants were recruited from the Eskind Pediatric Diabetes Clinic at Vanderbilt
University Medical Center (VUMC), a large academic medical center in Nashville, Tennessee.
The Eskind Pediatric Diabetes Clinic cares for approximately 2,000 patients from Tennessee
and surrounding states. With VUMC Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, letters
were mailed to parents of patients from the Eskind Pediatric Diabetes Clinic that
met the inclusion criteria inviting their participation through a hypertext link.
Inclusion criteria required that patients: (1) had an established diagnosis of type
1 diabetes; (2) were <13 years old; (3) had a scheduled visit within 6 months of invitation
receipt; (4) had parents or guardians able to read and provide informed consent; and
(5) had access to a computer with Internet access. Parents who completed a BVQ received
a $15 gift certificate, and those who completed a postvisit survey received an additional
$5 gift certificate.
Provider Participants
We recruited physicians and nurse practitioners from the Vanderbilt Pediatric Endocrine
Division, herein collectively called “providers.” Providers were apprised about the
study, its aims, and their potential role in the study during a presentation at the
Vanderbilt Weekly Pediatric Endocrine Lecture Series. Inclusion criteria were pediatric
endocrinology attending physicians and nurse practitioners seeing pediatric diabetes
patients at least once a week in the clinic. Trainees such as fellows and residents
were excluded. Providers expressing interest in participating signed informed consent
forms approved by the VUMC IRB prior to participation. Physicians received a $50 gift
card for sharing their feedback at the conclusion of the study.
Questionnaire Development
We developed the BVQ for this study to collect information about patient interval
histories and adherence barriers in children with type 1 diabetes ([Supplementary Appendix A], available in the online version). We searched PubMed for articles on diabetes + adherence + barriers + pediatric
to identify relevant themes to include in the questionnaire and investigated themes
in adult diabetes literature to identify concepts that were generalizable to pediatrics.
The BVQ includes questions about common barriers to pediatric diabetes care adherence
as derived from our literature review and an assessment of provider clinical notes.
BVQ items were reviewed for content validity through an iterative consulting process
with content experts (pediatric endocrinologists, pediatric psychologists, and certified
diabetes educators/nurse practitioners). Iterative changes ceased when no new recommendations
were made. Five parents of patients with diabetes were asked to review the BVQ for
clarity prior to deployment and offered no additional change suggestions. The final
questionnaire included questions about demographics, medication regimen, interval
history since the last appointment, adherence challenges, and barriers to diabetes
care. Parents could also enter free text. The BVQ was implemented using REDCap[14]. Invitations to complete the BVQ included information on how to access the BVQ online
and were sent via postal mail to eligible participants within 6 months prior to their
next clinic visit. Families were requested to complete the BVQ up to 1 month prior
to the clinic encounter. Following the mailed letter to parents, no messages were
sent to remind parents to complete the BVQ. Discrete data fields completed in the
BVQ autogenerated a summary note in prose intended for the provider documentation
([Supplementary Appendix C], available in the online version). The summary note was finalized in REDCap when
the questionnaire had been completed and pasted into the patient's electronic health
record (EHR) by the research team ([Supplementary Appendix D], available in the online version). The summaries were available to providers prior
to a clinical encounter. Providers had the option of copying and pasting the summary
notes into their documentation for the clinical encounter.
After an encounter, parents were invited to complete a postvisit survey created in
REDCap to determine how they perceived the BVQ and its effect on the clinical encounter
([Supplementary Appendix B], available in the online version). The survey asked if the BVQ prepared them for
the visit and if it improved the encounter. Response options were strongly disagree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree. Participants were asked if discussion of their primary medical and primary psychosocial
barriers would have occurred without the aid of the BVQ (yes, no, and unsure). An internal research team analyzed free-text comments from parents in the questionnaire.
Provider Note Analysis
We reviewed provider clinical encounter notes for each of the participating patients
using two sets of notes. Intervention notes were clinic visit notes written by the provider after the patient's parent had completed
a BVQ. BVQ summary notes were generated from those completed BVQs and made available
for providers to paste and incorporate into their clinic note. Some intervention notes
included an incorporated BVQ summary if the provider chose to paste that summary content
into their note. Some intervention notes did not include the BVQ summary if the provider
did not paste that content. Control notes were clinic visit notes for the same patients, but from encounters before the patient
enrolled in the study and before a BVQ was completed. We assessed control notes for
the two most recent encounters prior to the intervention if available. If only one
encounter note had been created prior to the intervention, we used it as the sole
control note.
Provider notes were coded using Vanderbilt PYBOSSA (Python Berkeley Open System for
Skill Aggregation).[15] PYBOSSA is an analytic framework designed to navigate clinical chart reviews. It
includes an architecture for storing and displaying sensitive data, and developing
tools to support crowdsourcing for analysis of large complex datasets such as EHR
notes. The length and volume of the provider notes lent itself well to the PYBOSSA
crowdsourcing method for theme identification. The themes used in codifying the elements
of the provider notes were developed from the same literature review method that was
conducted to determine themes for the BVQ using common constructs for pediatric diabetes
care barriers and adherence challenges. The PYBOSSA system stored de-identified notes
and displayed them to study workers, allowing them to snip sections of results and
code them according to the scheme for adherence and barriers to adherence. Coding
results were reviewed by the principal investigator (PI) and five medical student
research team members. Final codes were assigned by majority decision of the group.
We compared the frequency with which adherence challenges and barriers were applied
in intervention versus control notes.
Word count was conducted using Microsoft Word 2016's word count feature. Number of
words typed was used as a surrogate outcome measure for documentation burden. Specifically,
we counted the words typed by a provider in the history of present illness (HPI) section
in the patient's interval summary. Research team members reviewed the HPI of final
progress notes and identified HPIs containing components pasted from the BVQ-generated
summary. Word count was calculated as the number of words typed by the provider minus
words from the pasted BVQ summary. The number of words typed in the HPIs that contained
pasted summary information was compared with word counts in HPIs that did not contain
any text from the BVQ-generated summary.
Provider Interviews
All participating providers completed one-on-one interviews on using system-generated
summaries to prepare for clinical encounters and their documentation process. Audio
recordings of the interviews were transcribed verbatim and verified. Files containing
the transcribed interview notes were imported into Dedoose (Version 7.6.6), a qualitative
data analysis software application.
Provider statements were mapped to a theoretical model of provider views about the
note's efficacy as a clinical decision support tool. Critical concepts in this model
include (1) right information, (2) right recipient, (3) right intervention format,
(4) right communication channel, and (5) right time in the workflow. Data were analyzed
with Dedoose using a grounded theory approach, including line-by-line coding followed
by axial coding to understand relationships of key concepts to one another. Focused
coding mapped provider opinion concepts on the usefulness of the BVQ summaries as
a decision support instrument. Three researchers trained in qualitative data analysis
identified themes across notes and coded/analyzed the data. These themes were used
to create a key with codes for each theme, which was used to code interview transcripts.
The PI and a second author coded all interview transcripts. Final codes between assignments
were compared with identified conflicts, which were reconciled by discussion. A third
team member occasionally broke ties to resolve disagreements.
Statistical Analyses
Data were analyzed using R Studio software for Windows and Stata 12.1 (StataCorp LP).
We reported means and standard deviations (SDs) for continuous variables and counts
and frequencies for categorical variables. A chi-squared test was used as a trend
in proportions test. Wilcoxon and Pearson tests were used for testing differences
in demographic statistics between the participants in the study and those who did
not participate. We used logistic regression models with the Huber–White method to
adjust the cluster effect within provider for adherence, barrier, adherence plan,
and barrier plan from the provider note coding. An ordinal logistic regression model
with the Huber–White method calculated a total score, which was the sum of scores
for adherence, barrier, adherence plan, and barrier plan. A Wilcoxon test was used
to test the difference in additional word usage for word-count comparisons.
Results
Patient and Parent Characteristics
A total of 321 parents met the study's eligibility criteria. Among these, 97 (30%)
agreed to log into the system and participate in the study. Seventy-three (22%) completed
the questionnaire and had a subsequent clinical encounter. [Tables 1] and [2] show the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients and parents who participated
in the study. The mean age of patients was 9.1 years (SD: 2.9 years), while that of
parents was 38.9 years (SD: 5.8). Fifty-eight percent of the patients were female,
while 92% of parents were female. The mean patient A1c value was 8.0% (SD: 1.0; target:
<7.5%). The average time since the diabetes diagnosis was 3.4 years (SD: 2.3). [Table 1] also shows the demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients whose caretakers
were invited to complete the questionnaire but did not respond (nonresponders). There
were statistically significant differences in the income, race, and A1c values of
the two groups (p < 0.05 for each group).
Table 1
Demographic and clinical characteristics of children of respondents and nonrespondents
in the BVQ study
|
Variable
|
BVQ children
(n = 73)
Mean [SD] or n (%)
|
Children with nonrespondent parents
(n = 248)
Mean [SD] or n (%)
|
p-Values
|
|
Age
|
9.1 [2.9]
|
9.2 [2.6]
|
0.539
|
|
Female
|
42 (58)
|
121 (49)
|
0.183
|
|
Race (multi-select)
|
|
|
0.008
|
|
Caucasian
|
71 (97)
|
189 (76)
|
|
|
African American
|
4 (5)
|
33 (13)
|
|
|
Others
|
|
26 (11)
|
|
|
Pump user
|
31 (42)
|
|
|
|
Diabetes duration (y)
|
3.4 [2.3]
|
|
|
|
A1c
|
8.0 [1.0]
|
8.3 [1.6]
|
0.025
|
|
Household income
|
|
|
0.044
|
|
<$20,000
|
3 (4)
|
0 (0)
|
|
|
$20,001–$40,000
|
7 (10)
|
2 (1)
|
|
|
$40,001–$70,000
|
19 (26)
|
171 (69)
|
|
|
>$70,001
|
44 (60)
|
75 (30)
|
|
|
Insurance
|
|
|
0.001
|
|
Private
|
55 (75)
|
136 (55)
|
|
|
Medicaid
|
18 (25)
|
112 (45)
|
|
Abbreviation: BVQ, before visit questionnaire.
Note: Children of nonrespondents are pediatric diabetes clinic patients who were invited
to join the BVQ study but did not participate. Demographic information for children
of nonrespondents was collected through medical chart review.
Table 2
Demographic and clinical characteristics of study BVQ parent respondents
|
Variable (n = 73)
|
BVQ parents
Mean [SD] or n (%)
|
|
Age
|
38.9 [5.8]
|
|
Female
|
67 (92)
|
|
Race (multi-select)
|
|
|
Caucasian
|
71 (97)
|
|
African American
|
2 (3)
|
|
Parent education
|
|
|
High school or GED
|
7 (9)
|
|
2-year college
|
21 (29)
|
|
4-year college
|
26 (36)
|
|
Master's degree
|
14 (19)
|
|
Doctoral or professional degree
|
5 (7)
|
|
Parent relationship to child
|
|
|
Mother
|
66 (90)
|
|
Father
|
6 (9)
|
|
Grandparent
|
1 (1)
|
|
Parent marital status
|
|
|
Single
|
6 (8)
|
|
Married
|
66 (91)
|
|
Long-term relationship
|
1 (1)
|
Abbreviation: BVQ, before visit questionnaire.
[Fig. 1] shows the top medical and psychosocial barriers and adherence challenges facing
parents who completed the survey. The top medical barriers were “how certain foods
affect blood sugar,” “what to do when sick,” and “how exercise affects blood sugar.”
The top psychosocial barriers were “keeping a close eye on things when busy,” “option
for free-text response,” and “cost and finances.”
Fig. 1 Medical and psychosocial barriers and adherence challenges selected by participants.
BG, blood glucose.
Narrative text responses about barriers were provided by 33% of participants; 55%
of responses were already mapped to medical or psychosocial barriers in the system,
particularly “arguments with child about diabetes.” The main free-text responses that
did not map to existing barriers were concerns about hypoglycemia and parents feeling
overwhelmed with the daily rigor of the regimen.
Provider Characteristics
All sixteen providers working in the Vanderbilt Eskind Pediatric Diabetes Clinic practice
participated in the study. The mean age for providers was 45 (SD: 11) years, with
12 (SD: 11) average years of practice. Most were female (69%). Providers attended
the clinic an average of 4 half-days per week (SD: 2). When asked about typing notes
during an encounter, 56% stated that they always typed while in the room with the
patient, 31% stated they sometimes did, and 13% stated they never did.
Providers who documented in the room stated that capturing information immediately
was more efficient than writing notes on paper and typing them later and easier than
recalling it afterwards. Providers preferring not to document in the room noted that
doing so could reduce efficiency and patient engagement. For this group, typing a
clinic note accurately during an encounter was difficult, as was maintaining patient
engagement while working in the EHR.
Qualitative Analysis of Provider Perspectives on the Generated Summaries as Clinical
Decision Support
As noted in the Methods section, we examined the following categories:
-
Right information: Thirteen of the 16 (81%) providers desired that summaries be generated <7 days prior
to the visit, 2 of 16 (12%) were willing to accept summaries ≤14 days old, and 1 of
16 (7%) would use a generated summary ≤4 weeks old. Ideas like “accurate” and “true
and current” were used to describe the relevance of the generated summary in association
with its age. Providers were concerned that completing the BVQ too far in advance
of the encounter was subject to inaccuracy due to changes over time.
-
Right person: All providers found barrier information to be useful and noted that the time to acquire
it on their own could be prohibitive. One provider stated that having the information
provided was particularly helpful given time constraints that would otherwise prohibit
them from a more thorough review: “[we do] not often get into this... in the short
time that we have.”
-
Right intervention format: 11 of 16 (69%) of providers stated that the paragraph version of the note was an
optimal format for communicating its content externally, as when sending their consultation
note to a referring provider. One provider stated, “the role of sentences is to mimic
conversation between two individuals. And […] it would be a more appreciated version
for a primary care physician or a referring physician. […] I would prefer to get something
like this… rather than a bulleted thing. It […] lends a more personal touch.” A total
of 12 out of 16 (75%) stated that a bulleted version would be optimal for self-review
because the data could be easily scanned and the format would “save time.”
-
Right communication channel: 15 of 16 (94%) of providers desired a feature for auto-importing the generated summary
into their documentation to make it available for review and editing. Some providers
expressed frustration about forgetting to access the summary before a clinical encounter,
with one stating, “[I was] kicking myself when I noticed it was there and I didn't
use it.” Although the generated summary was visible in the patient's chart, providers
could overlook it because it was not directly linked to their documentation.
-
Right time in the workflow: All providers found access to barrier information before a patient encounter useful
as a way of preventing “surprises” and being caught “off guard.” One provider stated
it would be particularly helpful in a pediatric patient to “find out if they're pregnant
before you go in.”
Provider-Generated Notes
Intervention and Control Note Documentation
[Table 3] shows documentation frequency of barriers, adherence challenges, and plans to address
them in 204 provider notes.
Table 3
Coding results for provider intervention and control notes
|
Intervention (
n
= 73)
Documented (%)
|
Control (
n
= 131)
Documented (%)
|
Test statistic
|
|
Adherence
|
18 (25)
|
17 (13)
|
p = 0.034
|
|
Adherence plan
|
14 (19)
|
14 (11)
|
p = 0.091
|
|
Barrier
|
14 (19)
|
19 (15)
|
p = 0.385
|
|
Barrier plan
|
6 (8)
|
15 (11)
|
p = 0.467
|
Note: Adherence challenges and barriers documented in provider intervention and control
notes. Intervention notes were written by the provider for research patients after
they completed a BVQ. Control notes were written by the provider for the same research
patients for encounters prior to the patient's BVQ enrollment and completion of the
BVQ questionnaire.
Adherence Documentation and Plans to Address Adherence Problems from Intervention
Of the 73 intervention notes, 18 (25%) described adherence problems compared with
17 of 131 (13%) of the control notes, a difference that was statistically significant
(p = 0.034). Plans to address adherence problems were noted in 14 of 73 (19%) of the
intervention notes compared with 14 of 131 (11%) of control notes (p = 0.091).
Barrier Documentation and Plans to Address Barriers from Intervention
Barriers were coded in 14 of 73 intervention notes (19%) compared with 19 of 131 (15%)
of control notes (p = 0.385). Plans to address these barriers were noted in 6 of 73 (8%) intervention
notes and 15 of 131 (11%) of control notes (p = 0.46).
[Table 4] shows barriers and adherence challenges in the 204 provider notes, comparing intervention
notes that incorporated the generated interval summary to a cluster of all notes (both
intervention and control notes) that did not include the generated summary, as a secondary
analysis.
Table 4
Coding results for provider notes with and without generated summary incorporated
|
Incorporation of generated history (n = 13)
Documented (%)
|
No incorporation of generated history (n = 191)
Documented (%)
|
Combined (n = 204)
Documented (%)
|
Test statistic
|
|
Adherence
|
7 (54)
|
28 (15)
|
35 (17)
|
p < 0.001
|
|
Adherence plan
|
5 (38)
|
23 (12)
|
28 (14)
|
p = 0.007
|
|
Barrier
|
5 (38)
|
28 (15)
|
33 (16)
|
p = 0.024
|
|
Barrier plan
|
3 (2)
|
18 (9)
|
21 (10)
|
p = 0.117
|
Note: Adherence challenges and barriers documented in notes that incorporated the
generated interval history after patient completed a BVQ compared with all notes for
encounters prior to the patient's BVQ enrollment and completion.
Adherence Documentation and Plans to Address Adherence Problems When BVQ Summary Incorporated
Seven of 13 (54%) notes that incorporated the generated interval history noted adherence
problems, compared with 28 of 191 (15%) control notes that did the same (p < 0.001). Plans to address adherence problems were noted in 5 of 13 (38%) notes with
the interval history compared with 23 of 191 (12%) notes without (p = 0.024).
Barrier Documentation and Plans to Address Barriers When BVQ Summary Incorporated
Barriers were coded in 5 of 13 (38%) notes that did incorporate the generated interval
history, compared with 28 of 191 (15%) control notes that did not incorporate it (p = 0.007). Plans to address these problems were noted in 3 of 13 (23%) notes with
the history compared with 18 of 91 (9%) notes without incorporated interval history
(p = 0.117).
Note Word Count
When providers included summaries generated by the BVQ in their notes, the average
length of the HPI was 68 words (SD: 47) typed by the provider, excluding content copied
from the summary. When BVQ summaries were not included, the average HPI length was
137 (SD: 74) typed words (p = 0.003; [Fig. 2]).
Fig. 2 Average number of words typed by providers in the interval history portion of the
clinic note when (A) generated summaries were not incorporated in the documentation compared with number
of words typed and when (B) generated summaries were not incorporated in the documentation.
Parent Participant Postvisit Evaluation
Sixty-eight of the 73 BVQ participants completed the postvisit questionnaire. Of these,
80% agreed (35%) or strongly agreed (45%) that the BVQ prepared them better for the
visit, with 79% agreeing (38%) or strongly agreeing (41%) that the BVQ improved the
visit. While the majority (69%) indicated that they would have discussed their primary
medical barriers with their provider, 31% were either unsure (29%) or would not have
(2%) discussed their barriers without the BVQ ([Fig. 3]).
Fig. 3 Postvisit response from participants: BVQ facilitation of barrier discussion. BVQ,
before visit questionnaire.
Discussion
Eliciting barriers to diabetes self-management can help health care providers to develop
strategies to overcome them. We created a parent-facing BVQ that collected information
about histories and barriers and generated a summary note for the provider. This study
demonstrated that BVQs were accepted by providers and parents of patients with pediatric
diabetes, increased documentation of adherence problems, barriers, and plans to address
them, and may have facilitated discussion about challenges that could have gone unaddressed
otherwise in approximately 30% of patients. This study is unique in that it addresses
the use of a BVQ as part of chronic disease management, while other studies with patient
questionnaires focus on assisting data collection in acute care settings.[9]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
In this study, most parents agreed that the BVQ had a positive impact on their clinical
encounter via identifying and communicating barriers prior to the clinic visit. This
process may be augmented by using BVQ as a tool to log and track the course of a patient's
concerns leading up to each clinical encounter. By capturing most barriers in a structured
way, the BVQ may benefit overall patient care by facilitating connections with appropriate
professionals, such as a social worker for patients describing financial barriers.
Additionally, collecting barrier and interval history information longitudinally will
enable medical teams to evaluate how effectively patients' barriers are being addressed,
determine measures that can be taken to anticipate barriers and improve adherence,
and inform early interventions. This approach could also serve as a platform for patient
education and shared decision making by giving patients access to educational modules
based on responses entered.
Moreover, this study highlights the relevance of patient communication using free-text
comments: one-third of parent participants provided free-text responses regarding
barrier concerns, despite that 55% of those could be mapped to available selection
options. Future work can explore the content of the free-text comments to better understand
why participants did not choose similar available options. Sentiment and polarity
analysis of free-text responses can also be explored to alert the medical team regarding
patient or parent sentiments of concerns expressed.
Among providers, the generated interval summary was well received and seen as a benefit.
Timeliness of the information was an important feature. Given that accuracy in older
summaries could be questionable, the majority of providers (81%) desired summaries
less than 1 week old. A majority also desired a right-work-flow-channel feature that
would auto-import a highly visible summary into their clinical notes. Providers who
incorporated the summary into their notes were statistically more likely to document
barriers and plans to address them. Future BVQ iterations might incorporate prompts
in the note's assessment and plan section to encourage documentation of plans for
each barrier. Providers who preferred to document in the room as well as those who
preferred not to could benefit from a workflow that presents an interval summary for
a patient prior to a clinical encounter. Providers who copied the generated summary
into their notes typed 50% fewer words in the HPI, as the summary already provided
the content. Hence, our data suggest that both groups of providers may find that less
documentation is required since relevant information would be captured before the
encounter. The perspective of providers who did not document during the encounter
may evolve if this tool is leveraged as a discussion aid facilitating patient engagement.
In this sense, the BVQ could help providers who are concerned about EHRs interfering
with patient engagement. Furthermore, providers did not express concerns about missing
patient issues after BVQ use as they still had the opportunity to discuss any issues
with the parents during the encounter. This method allowed the parent to have initial
consideration about their concerns and share them with the provider, thus allowing
these concerns to be at the forefront of conversation.
Finally, regarding the format of the interval summary (prose vs. bullets), most providers
preferred the prose version (69%) as the output of their note for others to view as
that tends to be more reflective of a thorough written note. However, 75% also viewed
the bulleted version as preferable for self-review to easily pick up information.
Fortunately, electronic systems can render information to suit a user's needs and
a toggle feature can be incorporated to change views between prose and bullets according
to the user's preferences.
Limitations
Our study has several limitations. Data were obtained from a single subspecialty clinic
at a single medical center, yielding a small sample size. Therefore, external validation
and a larger sample would be necessary in future studies to understand the broader
applicability of this approach. There were notable differences between our respondent
and nonrespondent populations by race, income, and glycemic control, all of which
may further limit the generalizability of the outcomes. Because the BVQ was administered
online, the study design may have selected for individuals with Internet connectivity.
Ultimately, porting the BVQ to a mobile device will be important to execution at scale
to ensure patient inclusion regardless of computer and Internet access. Future work
may consider deploying the BVQ through the portal of the EHR system to integrate patient
documentation and concerns directly into their physician's electronic chart as well
as increase accessibility of the BVQ to patients.[20] The quasi-experimental and exploratory nature of the study also poses limitations.
Examining communication about barriers based on provider documentation may not have
been the optimal method for assessing the impact of the BVQ on patient–provider communication.
Conversations about barriers might have occurred during the clinical encounter without
the provider fully documenting that exchange. However, documentation has an important
role in communication and as evidence of work done. Audio or video recording of clinical
encounters may provide a more sensitive and specific means of capturing this information.
Collecting long-term follow-up data from patients might be useful to assess how well
a provider addressed barriers and their effects on clinical outcomes, such as A1c
values. Extension to other medical conditions will also motivate initiatives for incorporating
patient-generated content into clinical documentation. EHR systems that support data
collection that can be integrated into existing portals and clinical notes will be
important in the scalability of this methodology.
This approach shares a portion of the documentation effort between providers and parents
in a coproduction model. While consumers are already used to doing more and more work
that organizations previously did for them (e.g., self-checkout in grocery stores,
updating demographic information for banks), the cost of the added effort may have
been too high for some parents. It is possible that some parents may have encountered
structural barriers to BVQ access, and acknowledgment of this digital divide is of
particular importance in future implementations to ensure we do not overlook the barriers
of individuals that may have the greatest needs. For parents who participated in our
study, the improved interactions with the providers may have been a net-positive trade-off,
but this idea must be further studied in an environment without the incentives of
gift cards. Finally, while parents of children with diabetes were consulted for assessing
BVQ clarity before deployment, future BVQ iterations might consider including parent
input in the design of the questions. It was notable that the intervention elicited
more documentation of adherence concerns compared with barriers. This may be a function
of inherent challenges in the self-identification of barriers from the limited list
generated by the study team. Leveraging the survey design process in collaboration
with parents may help identify additional relevant barriers that could be elicited
in the BVQ.
Our data suggest that providers may require less documentation when using the BVQ
autogenerated summaries. However, with a larger sample size, one may find that providers
feel obliged to edit the autogenerated note, add details not mentioned in the HPI
section, or document more in the assessment and plan to address each item in the autogenerated
summary. Considering only a fraction of providers copied the autogenerated note into
the provider notes, the added importing step may be a limitation. Providers may benefit
from having the autogenerated note automatically appear as a provider's note and electing
to “opt out” and delete the note if they do not find it helpful rather than “opt in”
to its inclusion. Lastly, using the number of words providers typed in the interval
summary as a surrogate measure of documentation burden does not factor in the time
and effort providers spent reviewing or editing their notes. Thus, future work may
utilize a larger sample and measure time spent on this section looking at elements
such as elapsed time and keystrokes rather than words typed to estimate the differences
in providers' efforts.
Conclusion
Parent-completed BVQs in the form of electronic questionnaires may change the way
parents and providers communicate about a patient's care management. Although this
study evaluated the utility of BVQs completed by parents on behalf of minor patients,
in the future this method could be extended to incorporate BVQ self-completion by
adolescent and adult patients as well. EHR systems offering BVQs can help providers
address more barriers and improve patient engagement and provider efficiency. This
area is rich for disruption, and our simple strategy demonstrated efficacy in terms
of adherence and barrier-related communication and acceptability to patients and providers.
Patients may contribute to their medical records using BVQs, and they may accept the
added effort because they believe that the process benefits them. With new regulations
that promote clinical documentation sharing with patients, patients may appreciate
seeing their concerns acknowledged as part of their provider's documentation.[21] Although BVQs may already be in use in some medical disciplines, our approach demonstrates
its usefulness before clinic encounters to improve care for patients with chronic
diseases. It is time to revisit the standard use of paper clipboard forms used for
this purpose. We have demonstrated that a new workflow of electronic BVQs may improve
communication about adherence and barriers in pediatric patients with chronic diseases
and decrease documentation work for providers, leading to improvements in patient
engagement and overall care.
Clinical Relevance Statement
Clinical Relevance Statement
BVQs have the potential to increase patient engagement, improve communication about
health barriers, and automatically produce a portion of provider documentation. BVQs
offer a promising alternative approach to standard provider-driven documentation.
Multiple Choice Questions
Multiple Choice Questions
-
A critical component of the model of clinical decision support is:
-
A stochastic analysis describing a sequence of possible events.
-
Information present at the right time in the workflow.
-
Automatic manipulation of natural language.
-
A formatting system for displaying material retrieved via the Internet.
Correct Answer: The correct answer is option b. The five rights of the clinical decision support
model include (1) right information, (2) right recipient, (3) right intervention format,
(4) right channel, and (5) right time in the workflow. This model can be used to evaluate
the effectiveness of tools that facilitate decision-making.
-
Before visit questionnaires (BVQs) improve the quality of the clinic visit by:
-
Statistically increasing the documentation of adherence and barriers.
-
Reducing the parent's effort in preparing for the visit.
-
Increasing the amount of typing a provider generated.
-
History information older than 1 month.
Correct Answer: The correct answer is option a. BVQs increase the documentation of adherence issues
and plans to improvement as well as barriers. The cost includes more work for the
parent in advance of the visit. BVQs reduce the amount of typing by providers and
by limiting the time frame to less than 1 month provide relatively new information.
