Cited by 60Primary Care and Health OutcomesHealth Policy Implementation SciencePatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Evaluation of a patient-collected audio audit and feedback quality improvement program on clinician attention to patient life context and health care costs in the Veterans Affairs health care system

Open access
Weiner, Saul, Schwartz, Alan, Altman, Lisa, Ball, Sherry, Bartle, Brian, Binns-Calvey, Amy, Chan, Carolyn, Falck-Ytter, Corinna +11 more·2020·JAMA Network Open

Abstract

Importance: Evidence-based care plans can fail when they do not consider relevant patient life circumstances, termed contextual factors, such as a loss of social support or financial hardship. Preventing these contextual errors can reduce obstacles to effective care. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a quality improvement program in which clinicians receive ongoing feedback on their attention to patient contextual factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this quality improvement study, patients at 6 Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient facilities audio recorded their primary care visits from May 2017 to May 2019. Encounters were analyzed using the Content Coding for Contextualization of Care (4C) method. A feedback intervention based on the 4C coded analysis was introduced using a stepped wedge design. In the 4C coding schema, clues that patients are struggling with contextual factors are termed contextual red flags (eg, sudden loss of control of a chronic condition), and a positive outcome is prospectively defined for each encounter as a quantifiable improvement of the contextual red flag. Data analysis was performed from May to October 2019. Interventions: Clinicians received feedback at 2 intensity levels on their attention to patient contextual factors and on predefined patient outcomes at 4 to 6 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: Contextual error rates, patient outcomes, and hospitalization rates and costs were measured. Results: The patients (mean age, 62.0 years; 92% male) recorded 4496 encounters with 666 clinicians. At baseline, clinicians addressed 413 of 618 contextual factors in their care plans (67%). After either standard or enhanced feedback, they addressed 1707 of 2367 contextual factors (72%), a significant difference (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6; P = .01). In a mixed-effects logistic regression model, contextualized care planning was associated with a greater likelihood of improved outcomes (adjusted odds ratio, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.1; P < .001). In a budget analysis, estimated savings from avoided hospitalizations were $25.2 million (95% CI, $23.9-$26.6 million), at a cost of $337 242 for the intervention. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that patient-collected audio recordings of the medical encounter with feedback may enhance clinician attention to contextual factors, improve outcomes, and reduce hospitalizations. In addition, the intervention is associated with substantial cost savings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.9644

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a large prior study, audit and feedback increased clinician attention to patient contextual factors from 67% to 72%, but 28% of contextual factors remained unaddressed.

    “Attention to patient contextual factors increased from 67% to 72%, with a greater likelihood of improved outcomes compared with a control group, resulting in an estimated cost savings of $25.2 million from avoided hospitalizations. Although the intervention was effective, 28% of contextual factors remained unaddressed.5”

    From Effect of Electronic Health Record Clinical Decision Support on Contextualization of Care (2022) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Results report that clinicians addressed 67% of contextual factors before feedback and 72% afterward, leaving 28% unaddressed. They also report better outcomes for contextualized than noncontextualized care plans, and estimate $25.2 million in savings from avoided hospitalizations. The outcomes comparison was not described as a comparison with a control group. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Contextualizing care is associated with partial or complete resolution of the presenting contextual red flag, a meaningful health care outcome.

    “Contextualizing care is clinically important because it is associated with partial or complete resolution of the presenting contextual red flag, a meaningful health care outcome.5”
  • Efforts to improve contextualization of care through audit and feedback have achieved measurable but limited success.

    “Efforts to improve contextualization of care through audit and feedback have achieved measurable but limited success.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [13]The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Integrating Social Care Into the Delivery of Health Care: Moving Upstream to Improve the Nation’s health. National Academies Press; 2019. 31940159

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weiner, S., Schwartz, A., Altman, L., Ball, S., Bartle, B., Binns-Calvey, A., Chan, C., Falck-Ytter, C., Frenchman, M., Gee, B., Jackson, J. L., Jordan, N., Kass, B., Kelly, B., Safdar, N., Scholcoff, C., Sharma, G., Weaver, F., & Wopat, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (US)
  • Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center (US)
  • Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital (US)
  • Department of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago
  • Yale University (US)
  • Medical College of Wisconsin (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (US)
  • Milwaukee VA Medical Center (US)
  • Loyola University Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Weiner, Saul
Venue
JAMA Network Open
Published
2020-07-31
Volume
3
Issue
7
Pages
e209644
ISSN
2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3046874554
Cited by
60
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9
FWCI
9.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JAMA Network Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Office of Research and Development
  • Northwestern University
  • Health Services Research and Development
  • Feinberg School of Medicine
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
contextual factors, clinician feedback, quality improvement, hospital costs, health care costs, veterans, primary care, social support, financial hardship, stepped wedge design, patient-reported outcomes, cost-effectiveness, patient-clinician communication
MeSH terms
Cost Control, Feedback, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Tape Recording, United States, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Health Care Costs, Patient-Centered Care, Quality Improvement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review