Rupinder Hayer, Joyce Tang, Julia Bisschops, Gregory W Schneider, Kate Kirley, Tamkeen Khan, Erin Rieger, Eric Walford, Irsk Anderson, Valerie Press, Brent Williams
{"title":"h&p360在三家医疗机构的实施:可用性研究","authors":"Rupinder Hayer, Joyce Tang, Julia Bisschops, Gregory W Schneider, Kate Kirley, Tamkeen Khan, Erin Rieger, Eric Walford, Irsk Anderson, Valerie Press, Brent Williams","doi":"10.2196/66221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The traditional history and physical (H&P) provides the basis for physicians' data gathering, problem formulation, and care planning, yet it can miss relevant behavioral or social risk factors. The American Medical Association's \"H&P 360,\" a modified H&P, has been shown to foster information gathering and patient rapport in inpatient settings and objective structured clinical examinations. It prompts students to explore 7 domains, as appropriate to the clinical context: biomedical problems, psychosocial problems, patients' priorities and goals, behavioral history, relationships, living environment and resources, and functional status.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to examine the perceived usability of the H&P 360 outside standardized patient settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The H&P 360 was implemented in various clinical settings across 3 institutions. Of the 207 student participants, 18 were preclerkship, 126 were clerkship, and 63 were postclerkship; 3-8 months after implementation, we administered a student survey consisting of 14 Likert-type items (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) and 3 free-text response items to assess usability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 207 students, 61 responded to the survey (response rate was 29.5%). Among all students, mean ratings on the 3 usability survey items ranged from 4.03 to 4.24. The 5 items assessing the impact on patient care had mean ratings ranging from 3.88 to 4.24. The mean ratings for the 2 student learning items were 4.10 and 4.16. Students' open-ended comments were generally positive, expressing a perceived value in obtaining a more complete contextual picture of patients' conditions and supporting the usability of the H&P 360. Survey response patterns varied across institutions and learner levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that using the H&P 360 may enhance information gathering critical for chronic disease management, particularly regarding social drivers of health. As a potential new standard, the H&P 360 may have clinical usability for identifying and addressing health inequities. Future work should assess its effects on patient care and outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":36236,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Medical Education","volume":"11 ","pages":"e66221"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12179563/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implementing the H&P 360 in Three Medical Institutions: Usability Study.\",\"authors\":\"Rupinder Hayer, Joyce Tang, Julia Bisschops, Gregory W Schneider, Kate Kirley, Tamkeen Khan, Erin Rieger, Eric Walford, Irsk Anderson, Valerie Press, Brent Williams\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/66221\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The traditional history and physical (H&P) provides the basis for physicians' data gathering, problem formulation, and care planning, yet it can miss relevant behavioral or social risk factors. The American Medical Association's \\\"H&P 360,\\\" a modified H&P, has been shown to foster information gathering and patient rapport in inpatient settings and objective structured clinical examinations. It prompts students to explore 7 domains, as appropriate to the clinical context: biomedical problems, psychosocial problems, patients' priorities and goals, behavioral history, relationships, living environment and resources, and functional status.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to examine the perceived usability of the H&P 360 outside standardized patient settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The H&P 360 was implemented in various clinical settings across 3 institutions. Of the 207 student participants, 18 were preclerkship, 126 were clerkship, and 63 were postclerkship; 3-8 months after implementation, we administered a student survey consisting of 14 Likert-type items (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) and 3 free-text response items to assess usability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 207 students, 61 responded to the survey (response rate was 29.5%). Among all students, mean ratings on the 3 usability survey items ranged from 4.03 to 4.24. The 5 items assessing the impact on patient care had mean ratings ranging from 3.88 to 4.24. The mean ratings for the 2 student learning items were 4.10 and 4.16. Students' open-ended comments were generally positive, expressing a perceived value in obtaining a more complete contextual picture of patients' conditions and supporting the usability of the H&P 360. Survey response patterns varied across institutions and learner levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that using the H&P 360 may enhance information gathering critical for chronic disease management, particularly regarding social drivers of health. As a potential new standard, the H&P 360 may have clinical usability for identifying and addressing health inequities. Future work should assess its effects on patient care and outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Medical Education\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"e66221\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12179563/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/66221\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/66221","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Implementing the H&P 360 in Three Medical Institutions: Usability Study.
Background: The traditional history and physical (H&P) provides the basis for physicians' data gathering, problem formulation, and care planning, yet it can miss relevant behavioral or social risk factors. The American Medical Association's "H&P 360," a modified H&P, has been shown to foster information gathering and patient rapport in inpatient settings and objective structured clinical examinations. It prompts students to explore 7 domains, as appropriate to the clinical context: biomedical problems, psychosocial problems, patients' priorities and goals, behavioral history, relationships, living environment and resources, and functional status.
Objective: This study aims to examine the perceived usability of the H&P 360 outside standardized patient settings.
Methods: The H&P 360 was implemented in various clinical settings across 3 institutions. Of the 207 student participants, 18 were preclerkship, 126 were clerkship, and 63 were postclerkship; 3-8 months after implementation, we administered a student survey consisting of 14 Likert-type items (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) and 3 free-text response items to assess usability.
Results: Of the 207 students, 61 responded to the survey (response rate was 29.5%). Among all students, mean ratings on the 3 usability survey items ranged from 4.03 to 4.24. The 5 items assessing the impact on patient care had mean ratings ranging from 3.88 to 4.24. The mean ratings for the 2 student learning items were 4.10 and 4.16. Students' open-ended comments were generally positive, expressing a perceived value in obtaining a more complete contextual picture of patients' conditions and supporting the usability of the H&P 360. Survey response patterns varied across institutions and learner levels.
Conclusions: Our findings suggest that using the H&P 360 may enhance information gathering critical for chronic disease management, particularly regarding social drivers of health. As a potential new standard, the H&P 360 may have clinical usability for identifying and addressing health inequities. Future work should assess its effects on patient care and outcomes.