Patient counseling across neurologic subspecialties-a single academic center study.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Frontiers in Neurology Pub Date : 2026-10-09 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fneur.2026.1884883
Raed Hailat, Benjamin Templeton, Nicholas Capaci, Andrew George, Ankit Annapareddy, Kevin Kerber, James Burke
{"title":"Patient counseling across neurologic subspecialties-a single academic center study.","authors":"Raed Hailat, Benjamin Templeton, Nicholas Capaci, Andrew George, Ankit Annapareddy, Kevin Kerber, James Burke","doi":"10.3389/fneur.2026.1884883","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Counseling is a routine part of neurologic care, but little is known about how commonly it is documented. We sought to characterize counseling in routine neurologic care by determining the proportion of visits with documented counseling, describe forms of counseling, and investigate factors that predict documentation of counseling.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We performed a cross-sectional study via retrospective chart reviews of 994 neurologic subspeciality outpatient encounters at a tertiary academic medical center from September 2023 to October 2023. The main outcome of this analysis was documented counseling (Yes/No) which was established via protocol-driven pre-specified chart review with assessment of abstraction reliability. Secondary outcomes included lifestyle modification (e.g., exercise, sleep, diet, alcohol, safety) and medication/disease specific education counseling (e.g., headache, seizure, medication, cognitive, stroke). We used a multivariable generalized estimating equations regression model with clustering at the provider level to compare how patient counseling varied across provider subspecialities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 994 outpatient encounters, 38% (<i>n</i> = 374) of visits had any documented counseling. Counseling on medication/disease specific education (28%, <i>n</i> = 276) was more common than on lifestyle education (6%, <i>n</i> = 60). The neurologic subspecialties with highest percentage of documented counseling were headache (73%), epilepsy (51%), and stroke (41%) while the neurologic subspecialties with the lowest percentage of any documented patient counseling were neuromuscular (19%), cognitive (15%), and multiple sclerosis (11%). Headache subspecialists were the only provider group to have increased odds of counseling (OR = 3.6, CI: 1.3-9.9) compared to general neurologists, while cognitive and multiple sclerosis subspecialists had 73% (CI: 42%-78%) and 72% (CI: 25%-89%) lower odds of documenting any counseling. Patient demographics were not statistically significantly associated with frequency of counseling.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our study demonstrated significant variability in frequency and types of counseling documented across neurologic outpatient encounters and between subspecialists. The findings suggest that patient counseling may be undocumented and/or under-employed in certain fields. Future multi-centered studies are needed to understand documentation practices, actual performance of counseling relative to documentation, and patient clinical outcomes after participating in counseling.</p>","PeriodicalId":12575,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Neurology","volume":"17 ","pages":"1884883"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13690653/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2026.1884883","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Counseling is a routine part of neurologic care, but little is known about how commonly it is documented. We sought to characterize counseling in routine neurologic care by determining the proportion of visits with documented counseling, describe forms of counseling, and investigate factors that predict documentation of counseling.

Materials and methods: We performed a cross-sectional study via retrospective chart reviews of 994 neurologic subspeciality outpatient encounters at a tertiary academic medical center from September 2023 to October 2023. The main outcome of this analysis was documented counseling (Yes/No) which was established via protocol-driven pre-specified chart review with assessment of abstraction reliability. Secondary outcomes included lifestyle modification (e.g., exercise, sleep, diet, alcohol, safety) and medication/disease specific education counseling (e.g., headache, seizure, medication, cognitive, stroke). We used a multivariable generalized estimating equations regression model with clustering at the provider level to compare how patient counseling varied across provider subspecialities.

Results: Out of 994 outpatient encounters, 38% (n = 374) of visits had any documented counseling. Counseling on medication/disease specific education (28%, n = 276) was more common than on lifestyle education (6%, n = 60). The neurologic subspecialties with highest percentage of documented counseling were headache (73%), epilepsy (51%), and stroke (41%) while the neurologic subspecialties with the lowest percentage of any documented patient counseling were neuromuscular (19%), cognitive (15%), and multiple sclerosis (11%). Headache subspecialists were the only provider group to have increased odds of counseling (OR = 3.6, CI: 1.3-9.9) compared to general neurologists, while cognitive and multiple sclerosis subspecialists had 73% (CI: 42%-78%) and 72% (CI: 25%-89%) lower odds of documenting any counseling. Patient demographics were not statistically significantly associated with frequency of counseling.

Discussion: Our study demonstrated significant variability in frequency and types of counseling documented across neurologic outpatient encounters and between subspecialists. The findings suggest that patient counseling may be undocumented and/or under-employed in certain fields. Future multi-centered studies are needed to understand documentation practices, actual performance of counseling relative to documentation, and patient clinical outcomes after participating in counseling.

跨神经病学亚专科的患者咨询-一个单一的学术中心研究。
背景和目的:心理咨询是神经系统护理的一个常规部分,但很少有人知道它有多普遍。我们试图通过确定就诊记录咨询的比例,描述咨询的形式,并调查预测咨询记录的因素,来确定常规神经系统护理中的咨询特征。材料和方法:我们对某三级学术医疗中心2023年9月至2023年10月的994例神经亚专科门诊患者进行了回顾性图表回顾的横断面研究。该分析的主要结果是记录咨询(是/否),这是通过协议驱动的预先指定的图表审查和抽象可靠性评估来建立的。次要结局包括生活方式改变(如运动、睡眠、饮食、饮酒、安全)和药物/疾病特定教育咨询(如头痛、癫痫、药物、认知、中风)。我们使用了一个多变量广义估计方程回归模型,并在提供者水平上聚类,以比较患者咨询在提供者亚专科之间的差异。结果:在994例门诊就诊中,38% (n = 374)的就诊有任何书面咨询。药物/疾病专项教育咨询(28%,n = 276)比生活方式教育咨询(6%,n = 60)更为常见。记录咨询比例最高的神经系统亚专科是头痛(73%)、癫痫(51%)和中风(41%),而记录患者咨询比例最低的神经系统亚专科是神经肌肉(19%)、认知(15%)和多发性硬化症(11%)。与普通神经科医生相比,头痛专科医生是唯一一个提供咨询的几率增加的医生组(OR = 3.6, CI: 1.3-9.9),而认知和多发性硬化症专科医生记录任何咨询的几率分别低73% (CI: 42%-78%)和72% (CI: 25%-89%)。患者人口统计数据与咨询频率无统计学显著相关。讨论:我们的研究表明,在神经病学门诊就诊和专科医生之间,咨询记录的频率和类型存在显著差异。研究结果表明,在某些领域,患者咨询可能没有记录和/或未充分利用。未来的多中心研究需要了解文献实践,相对于文献的实际咨询效果,以及患者参与咨询后的临床结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Frontiers in Neurology
Frontiers in Neurology CLINICAL NEUROLOGYNEUROSCIENCES -NEUROSCIENCES
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
8.80%
发文量
2792
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: The section Stroke aims to quickly and accurately publish important experimental, translational and clinical studies, and reviews that contribute to the knowledge of stroke, its causes, manifestations, diagnosis, and management.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书