Visit Agenda Research Articles

Developing a Collaborative Agenda-Setting Intervention (CASI) to promote patient-centered communication in ovarian cancer care: A design thinking approach

ObjectivesPatient-centered communication (PCC) occurs when clinicians respond to patients’ needs, preferences, and concerns. While PCC is associated with better health-related quality of life in patients with cancer, patients with ovarian cancer have reported unmet communication needs. We used design thinking to develop an intervention to promote PCC in ovarian cancer care. MethodsFollowing the steps of design thinking, we empathized with stakeholders by reviewing the literature, then created stakeholder and journey maps to define the design challenge. To ideate solutions, we developed a challenge map. Finally, we developed wireframe prototypes and tested them with stakeholders. ResultsEmpathizing revealed that misaligned visit priorities precipitated suboptimal communication. Defining the design challenge and ideating solutions highlighted the need to normalize preference assessments, promote communication self-efficacy, and enhance visit efficiency. The Collaborative Agenda-Setting Intervention (CASI) elicits patients’ needs and preferences and delivers communication guidance at the point of care. Stakeholders approved of the prototype. ConclusionDesign thinking provided a systematic approach to empathizing with stakeholders, identifying challenges, and innovating solutions. Practice ImplicationsTo our knowledge, the CASI is the first intervention to set the visit agenda and support communication from within the electronic health record. Future research will assess its usability and acceptability.

Assessment of Agenda Setting With ACGME Milestones in Family Medicine Residents.

Family medicine residents are scored via milestones created by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) on various clinical domains, including communication. Communication involves a resident's ability to set an agenda, but this is rarely taught in formal education. Our study aimed to examine the relationship between ACGME Milestone achievement and ability to set a visit agenda, as measured by direct observation (DO) forms. We examined biannual (December, June) ACGME scores for family medicine residents at an academic institution from 2015-2020. Using faculty DO scores, we rated residents on six items corresponding to agenda setting. We used Spearman and Pearson correlations and two-sample paired t tests to analyze results. We analyzed a total of 246 ACGME scores and 215 DO forms. For first-year residents, we found significant, positive associations between agenda-setting and the total Milestone score (r[190]=.15, P=.034) in December, and in individual (r[190]=.17, P=.020) and total communication scores (r[186]=.16, P=.031), in June. However, for first-year residents, we found no significant correlations with communication scores in December or in the total milestone scores in June. We found significant progression for consecutive years in both communication milestones (t=-15.06, P<0.001) and agenda setting (t=-12.26, P<.001). The significant associations found in agenda setting with both ACGME total communication and Milestone scores for first-year residents only, suggests that agenda setting may be fundamental in early resident education.

Why Warfarin Should Be Managed in Primary Care.

For 5 years, our family medicine clinic's physician-pharmacy team managed anticoagulation onsite. Now, against our recommendations and desires as a clinic, anticoagulation at our site is no longer managed by our local interdisciplinary team. Instead, it is being managed by our system's centralized anticoagulation team. Although some may point out that anticoagulation management is one small element of our practice, we believe eliminating this could open the door to other changes to our scope of practice. Anticoagulation belongs in primary care where comprehensive care, ongoing relationships between patients and care teams, and flexible office visit agendas optimize this service.

Facilitators of and Barriers to Successful Implementation of the One Key Question® Pregnancy Intention Screening Tool.

Background:One Key Question® (OKQ) is a tool that embeds a patient-centered screening into routine visits with the goal of making pregnancy intention screening universal, but widespread implementation has not yet been adopted. We aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators of OKQ implementation to better understand how to best implement the tool across different settings.Methods:We invited staff and clinicians from one obstetrics and gynecology clinic and one family medicine clinic, which previously implemented OKQ, to complete surveys and qualitative interviews about their experiences with the tool. The interview guide and thematic analysis of the interview transcripts were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).Main Findings:Major facilitators of OKQ implementation are the simplicity of the tool, engagement of clinic leadership, and compatibility between the perceived goals of the tool and those of practice staff and clinicians. Although participants indicated that OKQ had a minimal impact on clinic workflow during its implementation, preimplementation time concerns were a major barrier to implementation in both clinics. Barriers seen in the family medicine practice included OKQ distracting from the visit agenda, and concerns about the OKQ gold standard protocol of screening each patient at every visit. Participants even suggested asking OKQ only during annual check-up appointments.Conclusions:The perceived alignment between the tool's goals and those of clinic stakeholders was an important facilitator of OKQ implementation success. However, characteristics of the clinic setting, such as competing medical priorities and time constraints, influenced initial attitudes toward the feasibility of the intervention. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT03947788

A randomized intervention involving family to improve communication in breast cancer care

We examined the effects of a communication intervention to engage family care partners on patient portal (MyChart) use, illness understanding, satisfaction with cancer care, and symptoms of anxiety in a single-blind randomized trial of patients in treatment for breast cancer. Patient-family dyads were recruited and randomly assigned a self-administered checklist to clarify the care partner role, establish a shared visit agenda, and facilitate MyChart access (n = 63) or usual care (n = 55). Interviews administered at baseline, 3, 9 (primary endpoint), and 12 months assessed anxiety (GAD-2), mean FAMCARE satisfaction, and complete illness understanding (4 of 4 items correct). Time-stamped electronic interactions measured MyChart use. By 9 months, more intervention than control care partners registered for MyChart (77.8 % vs 1.8%; p < 0.001) and logged into the patient’s account (61.2% vs 0% of those registered; p < 0.001), but few sent messages to clinicians (6.1% vs 0%; p = 0.247). More intervention than control patients viewed clinical notes (60.3% vs 32.7%; p = 0.003). No pre-post group differences in patient or care partner symptoms of anxiety, satisfaction, or complete illness understanding were found. Intervention patients whose care partners logged into MyChart were more likely to have complete illness understanding at 9 months (changed 70.0% to 80.0% vs 69.7% to 54.6%; p = 0.03); symptoms of anxiety were numerically lower (16.7% to 6.7% vs 15.2% to 15.2%; p = 0.24) and satisfaction numerically higher (15.8–16.2 vs 18.0–17.4; p = 0.25). A brief, scalable communication intervention led to greater care partner MyChart use and increased illness understanding among patients with more engaged care partners (NCT03283553).

I am ready to see you now, Doctor! A mixed-method study of the Let's Discuss Health website implementation in Primary Care.

Background Let's Discuss Health (LDH) is a website that encourages patients to prepare their health‐care encounters by providing communication training, review of topics and questions that are important to them.ObjectiveTo describe LDH implementation during primary care (PC) visits for chronic illnesses.MethodsDesign: Descriptive mixed‐method study. Setting: 6 PC clinics. Participants: 156 patients and 51 health‐care providers (HCP). Intervention: LDH website implementation. Outcome Measures: Perceived quality and usefulness of LDH; perceived quality of HCP‐patient communication; patient activation; LDH integration in routine PC practices and barriers to its use.ResultsPatients reported a positive perception of the website in that it helped them to adopt an active role in the encounters; recall their visit agenda and reduce encounter‐related stress; feel more confident to ask questions, feel more motivated to prepare their future medical visits and improve their chronic illness management. However, a certain disconnect emerged between HCP and patient perceptions as to the value of LDH in promoting a sense of partnership and collaboration. The main barriers to the use of LDH are HCP lack of interest, limited access to technology, lack of time and language barriers.ConclusionOur findings indicate that it is advantageous for patients to prepare their medical encounters. However, the study needs to be replicated in other medical environments using larger and more diverse samples.Patient and Public ContributionPatient partners were involved in the conduct of this study.

1302-P: Shared Decision Making in Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) Care: Insights from the CoYoT1 to California (CTC) Study

Introduction: CTC is a 15-month intervention study evaluating a patient-centered, home telehealth care model for young adults (YA) ages 16-25 with T1D. The patient-centered CoYoT1 Care arm includes a shared decision-making tool completed by providers (n=3) and patients (n=47) prior to each visit. The present analysis examines how patients and providers collaborated to shape initial visit agendas. Methods: Six potential topics were each rated on a 1-5 scale, where higher values indicate greater importance. Patient and provider ratings within each topic were compared using paired t-tests. Next, ratings were compared between visits where a topic was discussed or not discussed using independent t-tests; patient and provider data were evaluated separately. Results: Blood sugar ranges and supply/medication issues were discussed most frequently. Providers assigned higher overall importance to emotional well-being than their patients (p=0.005), but this topic was only discussed when patients assigned higher importance (p=0.001). Also, despite higher provider ratings, blood sugar ranges were only discussed when patients assigned higher importance (p=0.003). Discussion: Consistent with the CoYoT1 Care model, patients and providers collaborated to shape visit agendas, slightly favoring the patient perspective. Topics discussed were those assigned higher importance by patients and providers. Disclosure J.J. Flores Garcia: None. E. Pyatak: None. M.W. Reid: None. J.L. Fogel: None. J. Diaz: None. J. Raymond: None.

Introducing Palliative Care within the Treatment of End-Stage Liver Disease: The Study Protocol of a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Introduction: Patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) suffer from myriad symptoms due to the systemic effects of the disease and unpredictable acute episodes, which contribute to progressive deterioration in quality of life (QOL). Despite clear evidence that palliative care (PC) improves QOL in other serious illnesses, PC is underutilized and delayed for ESLD patients. Through a comparative effectiveness trial of specialist led consultative PC (Model 1) versus trained hepatologist led PC (Model 2), we aim to build evidence on introducing PC into the routine outpatient care of ESLD patients. Objective: We hypothesize that trained hepatologist led PC model will have a better improvement in QOL compared to consultative PC model. Methods: This two-arm, multicenter cluster-randomized trial assesses the effectiveness of two PC models for patients with ESLD. Fourteen clinical centers will recruit 1260 patient-caregiver dyads. Each center is the unit of randomization. Hepatologists at sites randomized to the Model 2 have undergone web-based training in the principles of PC as pertained to ESLD. PC intervention is delivered over four visits (initial, one, two, and three months). Follow-up assessments occur at 6, 9, and 12 months. Eligible patients are those with new onset or ongoing complications of ESLD with a caregiver willing to participate. Outcomes: The primary outcome is change in patients' QOL from baseline to three months. Secondary outcomes include symptom burden, depression, distress, satisfaction with care, caregiver burden and QOL, goal concordant care, and health care utilization. Challenges and Contributions Engagement: A research advisory board has been developed with representatives from the participating centers, who have provided active feedback on the protocol, outcomes, study methods, and training program. Intervention Fidelity: Intervention fidelity will be maintained by adherence to a visit agenda and providers in both models completing a PC checklist after each study visit.

Sharing in care: engaging care partners in the care and communication of breast cancer patients.

Family is often overlooked in cancer care. We developed a patient-family agenda setting intervention to engage family in cancer care communication. We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial (NCT03283553) of patients on active treatment for breast cancer and their family "care partner." Intervention dyads (n = 69) completed a self-administered checklist to clarify care partner roles, establish a shared visit agenda, and facilitate MyChart patient portal access. Control dyads (n = 63) received usual care. We assessed intervention acceptability and initial effects from post-visit surveys and MyChart utilization at 6weeks. At baseline, most patients (89.4%) but few care partners (1.5%) were registered for MyChart. Most patients (79.4%) wanted their care partner to have access to their records and 39.4% of care partners reported accessing MyChart. In completing the checklist, patients and care partners endorsed active communication roles for the care partner and identified a similar visit agenda: most (> 90%) reported the checklist was easy, useful, and recommended it to others. At 6weeks, intervention (vs control) care partners were more likely to be registered for MyChart (75.4% vs 1.6%; p < 0.001), to have logged in (43.5% vs 0%; p < 0.001) and viewed clinical notes (30.4% vs 0%; p < 0.001), but were no more likely to exchange direct messages with clinicians (1.5% vs 0%; p = 0.175). No differences in patients' MyChart use were observed, but intervention patients more often viewed clinical notes (50.7% vs 9.5%; p < 0.001). A patient-family agenda setting intervention was acceptable and affected online practices of cancer patients and care partners.

Engaging care partners in breast cancer care and communication.

11614 Background: Family is often overlooked in cancer care. Little is known about the patient preferences for involving family in communication, whether preferences may be elicited and supported at the point of care, and impact on care quality. Methods: We conducted a two-group pilot randomized controlled trial (NCT03283553) of patients on active treatment for breast cancer and the “care partner” who accompanies them to routine visits (n = 132 dyads). Intervention dyads (n = 69) completed a self-administered checklist to clarify the care partner role, establish a shared visit agenda, and facilitate access to the electronic health record (MyChart) patient portal. Control dyads (n = 63) received usual care. Intervention acceptability and short-term effects were assessed from post-visit surveys and MyChart utilization at 6 weeks. Results: At baseline, most patients (89.4%) but few care partners (1.5%) were registered for MyChart. Most patients (79.4%) wanted their care partner to have access to their records and 39.4% of care partners reported accessing it in the past year using the patient’s account login/password. In completing the checklist, intervention patients and care partners identified an active communication role for the care partner and similar issues for the visit agenda: topics most frequently selected were treatment goals/expectations (75.4% &amp; 66.7%, respectively), symptoms/side effects (73.9% &amp; 62.3%) and chances of cancer recurrence/spread (49.3% &amp; 44.9%). More than 90% of intervention participants reported that completing the checklist was easy, useful, and recommended it to others. At 6 weeks, intervention (vs control) care partners were more likely to be registered for MyChart (75.4 % vs 1.6%; p &lt; 0.001), to have logged in (43.5% vs 0%; p &lt; 0.001) and viewed clinical visit notes (30.4% vs 0%; p &lt; 0.001), but no more likely to have exchanged direct messages with the clinical team (1.5% vs 0%; p = 0.175). No difference in patient MyChart registration, use, or messaging was found at 6 weeks, but intervention patients more often viewed clinical visit notes (50.7% vs 9.5%; p &lt; 0.001). Conclusions: A self-administered patient-family communication intervention affected online practices of patients and cancer care partners. Follow-up continues. Clinical trial information: NCT03283553.

Team-based care: an expanded medical assistant role – enhanced rooming and visit assistance

ABSTRACT Primary care practices face significant challenges as they pursue the Quadruple Aim. Redistributing care across the interprofessional primary care team by expanding the role of the medical assistant (MA) is a potential strategy to address these challenges. Two sequential, linked processes to expand the role of the MA, called Enhanced Rooming and Visit Assistance, were implemented in four family medicine residency clinics in Minnesota. In Enhanced Rooming, MAs addressed preventive services, obtained a preliminary visit agenda, and completed a warm hand-off to the provider. In Visit Assistance, MAs stayed in the room the entire visit to assist with the visit workflow. Enhanced Rooming and Visit Assistance processes were successfully implemented and sustained for over one year. MAs and providers were satisfied with both processes, and patients accepted the expanded MA roles. Mammogram ordering rates increased from 10% to 25% (p < 0.0001). After Visit Summary (AVS) print rates increased by 12% (p < 0.0001). Visit Turn-Around-Time (TAT) decreased 3.1 minutes per visit (p = 0.0001). Expanding the MA role in a primary care interprofessional team is feasible and a potentially useful tool to address the Quadruple Aim.

Patient-Family Agenda Setting for Primary Care Patients with Cognitive Impairment: the SAME Page Trial.

Establishing priorities for discussion during time-limited primary care visits is challenging in the care of patients with cognitive impairment. These patients commonly attend primary care visits with a family companion. To examine whether a patient-family agenda setting intervention improves primary care visit communication for patients with cognitive impairment DESIGN: Two-group pilot randomized controlled study PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 65 + with cognitive impairment and family companions (n = 93 dyads) and clinicians (n = 14) from two general and one geriatrics primary care clinic INTERVENTION: A self-administered paper-pencil checklist to clarify the role of the companion and establish a shared visit agenda MEASUREMENTS: Patient-centered communication (primary); verbal activity, information disclosure including discussion of memory, and visit duration (secondary), from audio recordings of visit discussion RESULTS: Dyads were randomized to usual care (n = 44) or intervention (n = 49). Intervention participants endorsed an active communication role for companions to help patients understand what the clinician says or means (90% of dyads), remind patients to ask questions or ask clinicians questions directly (84% of dyads), or listen and take notes (82% of dyads). Intervention dyads identified 4.4 health issues for the agenda on average: patients more often identified memory (59.2 versus 38.8%; p = 0.012) and mood (42.9 versus 24.5%; p = 0.013) whereas companions more often identified safety (36.7 versus 18.4%; p = 0.039) and personality/behavior change (32.7 versus 16.3%; p = 0.011). Communication was significantly more patient-centered in intervention than in control visits at general clinics (p < 0.001) and in pooled analyses (ratio of 0.86 versus 0.68; p = 0.046). At general clinics, intervention (versus control) dyads contributed more lifestyle and psychosocial talk (p < 0.001) and less biomedical talk (p < 0.001) and companions were more verbally active (p < 0.005). No intervention effects were found at the geriatrics clinic. No effect on memory discussions or visit duration was observed. Patient-family agenda setting may improve primary care visit communication for patients with cognitive impairment. ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02986958.

'The Hand on the Doorknob': Visit Agenda Setting by Complex Patients and Their Primary Care Physicians.

Choosing which issues to discuss in the limited time available during primary care visits is an important task for complex patients with chronic conditions. We conducted sequential interviews with complex patients (n = 40) and their primary care physicians (n = 17) from 3 different health systems to investigate how patients and physicians prepare for visits, how visit agendas are determined, and how discussion priorities are established during time-limited visits. Visit flow and alignment were enhanced when both patients and physicians were effectively prepared before the visit, when the patient brought up highest-priority items first, the physician and patient worked together at the beginning of the visit to establish the visit agenda, and other team members contributed to agenda setting. A range of factors were identified that undermined the ability of patient and physicians to establish an efficient working agenda: the most prominent were time pressure and short visit lengths, but also included differing visit expectations, patient hesitancy to bring up embarrassing concerns, electronic medical record/documentation requirements, differences balancing current symptoms versus future medical risk, nonactionable items, differing philosophies about medications and lifestyle interventions, and difficulty by patients in prioritizing their top concerns. Primary care patients and their physicians adopt a range of different strategies to address the time constraints during visits. The primary factor that supported well-aligned visits was the ability for patients and physicians to proactively negotiate the visit agenda at the beginning of the visit. Efforts to optimize care within time-constrained systems should focus on helping patients more effectively prepare for visits. Physicians should ask for the patient's agenda early, explain visit parameters, establish a reasonable number of concerns that can be discussed, and collaborate on a plan to deal with concerns that cannot be addressed during the visit.

Influence of Language and Culture in the Primary Care of Spanish-Speaking Latino Adults with Poorly Controlled Diabetes: A Qualitative Study.

We examined the role of language and culture in the interactions between Spanish-speaking Latino patients with poorly controlled diabetes - a fast-growing population in the United States - and their primary care providers. We conducted four focus groups with 36 non-US born Spanish-speaking patients with elevated HbA1c. Participants were insured health plan members with either English-speaking (2 groups) or Spanish-speaking (2 groups) primary care providers. Moderated discussions focused on visit preparation, communication during visit, and role of other care team members. Key themes derived from these discussions were then linked to corresponding Latino cultural constructs. Patients had a mean age of 57.9 (±11.2) years and last measured HbA1c was 8.6% (1.5%). Two communication-related themes (reluctance to switch providers and use of intermediaries) and two visit-related themes (provider-driven visit agendas and problem-based visits) emerged from our analyses. These themes reflected the cultural constructs of confianza (trust), familismo (family), respeto (deference), and simpatía (harmonious relationship). Trust in the patient-provider relationship led many participants to remain with English-speaking providers who treated them well. Patients with either language concordant and discordant providers reported reliance on family or other intermediaries to close communication gaps. Deference to physician expertise and authority led to visit expectations that it is the doctor's job to know what to ask and that visits were intended to address specific, often symptom-driven problems. Spanish-speaking Latino patients' cultural expectations play an important role in framing their primary care interactions. Recognizing culturally influenced visit expectations is an important step toward improving patient-provider communication.

"Let him speak:" a descriptive qualitative study of the roles and behaviors of family companions in primary care visits among older adults with cognitive impairment.

Cognitive impairment poses communication challenges in primary care. Although family "companions" commonly attend primary care visits of older adults with cognitive impairment, little is known about how their involvement affects communication. Therefore, we sought to understand how companion involvement affects the quality of primary care visit communication for older adults with cognitive impairment. Cross-sectional, descriptive qualitative study participants were as follows: (1) English-speaking adults age 65 or older with mild, moderate, or severe cognitive impairment; (2) family members or other unpaid companions who accompany older adults to primary care visits; and (3) primary care clinicians. Twenty semi-structured and in-depth qualitative interviews of older adults and their companions (N=20 dyads) and two focus groups (N=10 primary care clinicians) were conducted. Interviews and focus groups were transcribed and analyzed thematically. Family companions commonly facilitate communication by advocating for patients, ensuring the accuracy of information exchange and understanding, and preserving rapport. Significant communication challenges were also identified, including patient and companion role ambiguity, competing visit agendas, and primary care clinician confusion regarding the most accurate source of information. Patients, companions, and clinicians each identified strategies to improve communication, chief among them being to identify, differentiate, and respect both patient and companion priorities and perspectives. Family companions actively participate in primary care visits of older adults with cognitive impairment in ways that promote and inhibit effective communication. Findings suggest the need for strategies that more effectively and purposefully involve family in the care of primary care patients with cognitive impairment. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Patients Typing Their Own Visit Agendas Into an Electronic Medical Record: Pilot in a Safety-Net Clinic.

Collaborative visit agenda setting between patient and doctor is recommended. We assessed the feasibility, acceptability, and utility of patients attending a large primary care safety-net clinic typing their agendas into the electronic visit note before seeing their clinicians. One hundred and one patients and their 28 clinicians completed post-visit surveys. Patients and clinicians agreed that the agendas improved patient-clinician communication (patients 79%, clinician 74%), and wanted to continue having patients type agendas in the future (73%, 82%). Enabling patients to type visit agendas may enhance care by engaging patients and giving clinicians an efficient way to prioritize patients' concerns.

Improving Patient-Clinician Conversations During Annual Wellness Visits.

Health risk assessments (HRAs) have been implemented and studied for decades in various settings, but little is known about the effect of introducing HRAs on the dynamics and content of patient-clinician conversations during Medicare Annual Wellness Visits (AWVs) and whether the effective use of HRAs requires additional training and resources. We used Conversation Analysis techniques to analyze 40 AWVs conducted in an academic family medicine residency practice. After a 3-month baseline period, a low-intensity intervention was implemented to explore improvements in the dynamics and content of conversations. Short exit interviews with patients and clinicians were evaluated by standard content analytic techniques. Six overarching themes emerged that described the dynamics of AWV conversations. Patients and clinicians sub-optimally utilized the HRA report and missed many opportunities for promoting behavior change. However, a low-intensity, multi-component intervention significantly decreased the proportion of clinician talk time per visit by 9% (P < .001), while it increased the proportion of patient talk time by 7% (P < .001), robustly increased the number and duration of "change talk" by 639% (P = .0007), increased the number of patient cut-ins by 237% (P = .04) and tended to increase the number and duration of clinician "advice talk" (P = .065). Patients felt more informed, empowered, and motivated by the HRA-enhanced wellness visit. Clinicians found that the process helped them construct a more effective visit agenda and it facilitated the convergence of patient goals with evidence-based recommendations. Our study suggests that HRAs introduced without proper framing, education, and additional resources may not allow patients and clinicians to leverage AWVs for effective health planning and improvement. A targeted, low-intensity intervention may help patients and clinicians improve the quality of HRA-guided health conversations during AWVs.

Disclosing genetic risk of Alzheimer’s disease to cognitively impaired patients and visit companions: Findings from the REVEAL Study

ObjectiveTo describe the impact of genetic information on Alzheimer’s disease (AD) risk communication to patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and their visit companions. MethodsParticipants of the fourth REVEAL Study trial were randomized to receive AD risk assessments with or without genotype results. We coded 79 audio recorded risk disclosure sessions with the Roter Interaction Analysis System. Multilevel analyses explored differences in communication when disclosed risks were based on age and MCI diagnosis alone or in addition to APOE genotype status. ResultsThe addition of genotype results diminished the patient-centered nature of the sessions (p<0.001). When ε4 positive relative to ε4 negative results were disclosed, visit companions were more verbally active (p<0.05), disclosed more medical information (p<0.05), were more positive verbally and non-verbally (p<0.05) and were more proactive in setting the visit agenda (p<0.05). ConclusionsDelivery of complex genetic risk information reduces the patient-centeredness of disclosure sessions. Visit companions are more actively engaged in session communication when patients are at increased genetic risk for AD. Practice implicationsAD risk discussions can be improved by supporting the positive role of visit companions and addressing the challenges inherent in the delivery of complex genetic information in a patient-centered manner.

Primary care visit preparation and communication for patients with poorly controlled diabetes: A qualitative study of patients and physicians

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to examine how patients with diabetes and their primary care physicians identify and discuss visit priorities prior to and during visits. MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study involving patients with diabetes (4 focus groups, n=29) and primary care physicians (6 provider practice meeting discussions, n=67). ResultsFour key themes related to prioritization were identified: 1) the value of identifying visit priorities before the visit; 2) challenges to negotiating priorities during the time-limited visit; 3) the importance of “non-medical” priorities; and 4) the need for strategies to help patients prepare for visits. Both patients and physicians felt that identifying a concise list of key priorities in advance of the visit could help establish collaborative visit agendas and treatment plans. ConclusionsIdentifying and communicating mutually agreed upon priorities for discussion is a key challenge for time-limited primary care visits. Practice implicationsCommunication between primary care physicians and their patients with diabetes could be improved by strategies that help patients identify their top visit priorities before the visit.

Evaluation of patient's versus hematologist/oncologist's office visit agenda.

125 Background: Few studies have been reported in oncology regarding elements of physician agenda. We aim to compare elements of a doctor office visit agenda between hem/onc physicians (MD) and patients (pts). Methods: Pts and MDs were enrolled to completed a five question survey. Pts were asked: “My doctor” Focuses more on quantity of life and less on quality of life, spends enough time with me, addresses symptoms, addresses chemo side effects, and addresses prognosis. MDs were asked the same questions but worded: "I” spend enough time with pts for example. Answers were recorded on a 5 point scale (1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree,5 = highly agree) and converted into 2 categories (1,2,3 = neutral/disagree vs 4,5 = agree). Fisher’s exact test with 2 sided p-value was used to compare significance between MD &amp; pts. Results: 1008 pts and 55 MDs were enrolled between 06/2013 - 10/2015. Pt mean age 55 (18-88) with 45% male and 55% female. Racial profile: 16% white, 14% black, 2% Asian/Pacific Islander. Ethnicity: 62% of pts were Hispanic vs. 38% not Hispanic, &amp; 6% other. A significant number of pts feel MDs focus more on quantity of life vs. quality of life (64% pt vs 26% MD p &lt; 0.0001) and MD spend enough time (94% pt vs 82% MD p &lt; 0.05). No differences were seen for symptoms (92% vs 87% p = 0.2), side effects (92% vs 94% p = 1.0), or prognosis (91% vs 96% p = 0.3) pt vs MD respesctively. Conclusions: Pts feel MDs focus more on quantity of life vs. the quality of life. MDs feel they focus more on quality of life vs. quantity of life. Perhaps bridging the gap in what constitutes “quality of life” may improve patient satisfaction. Furthermore MDs underestimate the time spent with their patients. Perhaps MD are spending too much time with some patients resulting in inefficient office visits.