Providers contextualise care more often when they discover patient context by asking: meta-analysis of three primary data sets
Open accessAbstract
Objectives: One important component of patient-centred care is provider incorporation of patient contextual factors—life circumstances relevant to their care—in managing the patient's health. The current study uses data sets collected from direct observation of care to examine if how a provider learns contextual information influences whether the provider incorporates the information into a care plan. Methods: Three data sets were reanalysed: a research study with physicians, a quality improvement project with physicians and a performance measurement project with telephone health assistants. In each data set, investigators compute rates of incorporation of patient contextual factors into the care plan for encounters in which factors were elicited in response to a probe by the provider versus revealed spontaneously by the patient. We report the rates, CIs and associated ORs for each study and overall using a random effects meta-analysis. Results: Providers elicited 57%, 49% and 30% of patient contextual factors identified in encounters in each data set. Patient contextual factors identified in response to probes were incorporated into the plan of care more frequently than those revealed spontaneously by patients (68% vs 46%, 71% vs 54% and 93% vs 77%, respectively). The summary OR for incorporation of patient contextual factors into the care plan when the factor was probed versus revealed spontaneously was 4.16 (95% CI 2.0 to 8.6). While this estimate was associated with significant heterogeneity (I 2=76%), the ORs for the individual data sets were 2.53 (1.4 to 4.5), 6.25 (4.9 to 8.0) and 4.2 (0.9 to 19.3). Conclusions: In encounters where addressing patient contextual factors may play an important role in care decisions, factors that are elicited actively by the provider are more likely to be incorporated in the care plan than factors revealed spontaneously by the patient. These differences in the care process associated with provider performance can only be demonstrated through direct observation.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Factors identified through probing were much more likely to be incorporated into care plans than those that were not (aOR, 61.65 [95% CI, 21.92-173.42]; P < .001).
“As in past studies, factors identified through probing were additionally much more likely to be incorporated into care plans than those that were not (aOR, 61.65 [95% CI, 21.92-173.42]; P < .001) (Table 1 in eAppendix 6 in Supplement 2).17”
From Effect of Electronic Health Record Clinical Decision Support on Contextualization of Care (2022) · cites this paper as [17]
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
Patient-collected audio for performance assessment of the clinical encounter
Weiner, S. J., Schwartz, A., Sharma, G., Binns-Calvey, A., Ashley, N., Kelly, B., & Weaver, F. M. (2015) · The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety · doi:10.1016/s1553-7250(15)41037-2 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Schwartz A, et al. BMJ Qual Saf 2016;25:159-163. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004283 on July 10, 2023 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/ BMJ Qual Saf: first published as 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004283 on 22 July 2015. Downloaded from
- Glassman PA, Luck J, O'Gara EM, et al. Using standardized patients to measure quality: evidence from the literature and a prospective study. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2000;26:644-53.
- Luck J, Peabody JW. Using standardised patients to measure physicians' practice: validation study using audio recordings. BMJ 2002;325:679. · DOI
- Weiner SJ, Schwartz A, Sharma G, et al. Patient-centered decision making and health care outcomes: an observational study. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:573-9. · DOI · Paper page
- Schwartz A, Weiner SJ, Binns-Calvey A. Comparing announced with unannounced standardized patients in performance assessment. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2013;39:83-8.
- Weiner SJ, Kelly B, Ashley N, et al. Content coding for contextualization of care: evaluating physician performance at patient-centered decision making. Med Decis Making 2014;34:97-106. · DOI · Paper page
- Schwartz A, Weiner SJ, Harris IB, et al. An educational intervention for contextualizing patient care and medical students' abilities to probe for contextual issues in simulated patients. JAMA 2010;304:1191-7. · DOI
- Redelmeier DA, Shafir E, Aujla PS. The beguiling pursuit of more information. Med Decis Making 2001;21: 376-81. · DOI
- Nickerson RS. Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol 1998;2:175-220. · DOI · Paper page
- Weiner SJ, Schwartz A, Weaver FM, et al. Contextual errors and failures in individualizing patient care: a multicenter study. Ann Intern Med 2010;153:69-75. · DOI · Paper page
- Original research Schwartz A, et al. BMJ Qual Saf 2016;25:159-163. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004283 163 on July 10, 2023 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/ BMJ Qual Saf: first published as 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004283 on 22 July 2015. Downloaded from · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Effect of Electronic Health Record Clinical Decision Support on Contextualization of Care
Weiner, S. J., Schwartz, A., Weaver, F., Galanter, W., Olender, S., Kochendorfer, K., Binns-Calvey, A., Saini, R., Iqbal, S., Diaz, M., et al. (2022) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.38231 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Self-citationListening for What Matters: Avoiding Contextual Errors in Health Care
Weiner, M., & Schwartz, P. (2023) · doi:10.1093/med/9780197588109.001.0001 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
- Authors
- Schwartz, A., Weiner, S. J., Binns-Calvey, A., & Weaver, F. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Chicago (US)
- Department of Medical Education, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
- Loyola University Chicago (US)
- Corresponding author
- Schwartz, Alan
- Venue
- BMJ Quality & Safety
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2015-07-22
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 159-163
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-5415
- 2044-5423
- OpenAlex
- W2270138447
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 0.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMJ Quality & Safety (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
- Keywords
- patient-centered care, care planning, physician-patient encounters, quality improvement, performance measurement
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Patient Care Planning, Patient Participation, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Quality Control, Patient-Centered Care, Datasets as Topic
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