h&p360在三家医疗机构的实施:可用性研究

IF 3.2 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:传统病史和体格(H&P)为医生的数据收集、问题制定和护理计划提供了基础,但它可能忽略相关的行为或社会风险因素。美国医学协会的“H&P 360”,一个改进的H&P,已经被证明可以在住院环境和客观结构化的临床检查中促进信息收集和病人关系。它促使学生根据临床情况探索7个领域:生物医学问题、社会心理问题、患者的优先事项和目标、行为史、人际关系、生活环境和资源以及功能状态。目的:本研究旨在检验h&p360在标准化患者环境之外的感知可用性。方法:h&p360在3家机构的不同临床环境中实施。在207名学生参与者中,18名是实习前的,126名是实习后的,63名是实习后的;实施后3-8个月,我们进行了一项由14个李克特式项目(1=非常不同意到5=非常同意)和3个自由文本回答项目组成的学生调查,以评估可用性。结果:207名学生中,有61人回复问卷,回复率为29.5%。在所有学生中,3个可用性调查项目的平均评分在4.03到4.24之间。评估对患者护理影响的5个项目的平均评分范围为3.88至4.24。学生对两个学习项目的平均评分分别为4.10分和4.16分。学生们的开放式评论普遍是积极的,表达了对获得更完整的患者状况背景图片的感知价值,并支持H&P 360的可用性。调查的回应模式因院校和学习者水平而异。结论:我们的研究结果表明,使用H&P 360可以加强对慢性疾病管理至关重要的信息收集,特别是关于健康的社会驱动因素。作为一种潜在的新标准,H&P 360可能在临床上可用来识别和解决卫生不公平问题。未来的工作应评估其对患者护理和结果的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR Medical Education
JMIR Medical Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
54
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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