医患开处方对话:质量保证记录的多学科分析

IF 3.3 4区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Kelly E. Tenzek, Huei-Yen Winnie Chen, Laura A. Brady, Connor Wurst, Matt Cosmai, Jennifer Carlson, Andrew Baumgartner, Ranjit Singh, Robert G. Wahler Jr., Scott Monte
{"title":"医患开处方对话:质量保证记录的多学科分析","authors":"Kelly E. Tenzek,&nbsp;Huei-Yen Winnie Chen,&nbsp;Laura A. Brady,&nbsp;Connor Wurst,&nbsp;Matt Cosmai,&nbsp;Jennifer Carlson,&nbsp;Andrew Baumgartner,&nbsp;Ranjit Singh,&nbsp;Robert G. Wahler Jr.,&nbsp;Scott Monte","doi":"10.1111/bcpt.70122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Previous work in deprescribing interactions primarily involved surveys, interviews or reviews; there is a gap in utilizing real-time doctor–patient communication to understand what strategies physicians use to deprescribe and how patients respond. To move research methodology in this direction, our multidisciplinary team brought together professionals from biomedical, cognitive and social sciences to collaborate with a primary care practice and analyse nine quality-assurance recordings of doctor–patient visits. Eligible patients were 60 years or older and prescribed two or more medications. Through collaborative mixed-method analysis, we identified outcomes and themes of deprescribing conversations. An additional layer of analysis was conducted based on qualitative interviews with two deprescribing physicians for a conversation about physicians' decision-making process in initiating and responding to patient concerns in the interaction. Interplay between patient, physician and system factors was noted, highlighting the key role of health care team collaboration to support deprescribing. Our innovative research design enables a better understanding of deprescribing processes in a primary care setting and has implications for future research including patients, caregivers and community providers.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":8733,"journal":{"name":"Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology","volume":"137 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Doctor–Patient Deprescribing Conversations: A Multidisciplinary Analysis of Quality Assurance Recordings\",\"authors\":\"Kelly E. Tenzek,&nbsp;Huei-Yen Winnie Chen,&nbsp;Laura A. Brady,&nbsp;Connor Wurst,&nbsp;Matt Cosmai,&nbsp;Jennifer Carlson,&nbsp;Andrew Baumgartner,&nbsp;Ranjit Singh,&nbsp;Robert G. Wahler Jr.,&nbsp;Scott Monte\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bcpt.70122\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Previous work in deprescribing interactions primarily involved surveys, interviews or reviews; there is a gap in utilizing real-time doctor–patient communication to understand what strategies physicians use to deprescribe and how patients respond. To move research methodology in this direction, our multidisciplinary team brought together professionals from biomedical, cognitive and social sciences to collaborate with a primary care practice and analyse nine quality-assurance recordings of doctor–patient visits. Eligible patients were 60 years or older and prescribed two or more medications. Through collaborative mixed-method analysis, we identified outcomes and themes of deprescribing conversations. An additional layer of analysis was conducted based on qualitative interviews with two deprescribing physicians for a conversation about physicians' decision-making process in initiating and responding to patient concerns in the interaction. Interplay between patient, physician and system factors was noted, highlighting the key role of health care team collaboration to support deprescribing. Our innovative research design enables a better understanding of deprescribing processes in a primary care setting and has implications for future research including patients, caregivers and community providers.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8733,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology\",\"volume\":\"137 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcpt.70122\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcpt.70122","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

先前描述相互作用的工作主要涉及调查、访谈或评论;在利用实时医患沟通来了解医生使用什么策略来开处方以及患者如何反应方面存在差距。为了使研究方法朝着这个方向发展,我们的多学科团队汇集了来自生物医学、认知科学和社会科学的专业人士,与一家初级保健诊所合作,分析了9份医生和病人就诊的质量保证记录。符合条件的患者年龄在60岁或以上,并且开了两种或两种以上的药物。通过协作混合方法分析,我们确定了描述对话的结果和主题。另一层分析是基于对两位开处方的医生的定性访谈,以讨论医生在互动中发起和回应患者关注的决策过程。注意到患者、医生和系统因素之间的相互作用,突出了卫生保健团队协作在支持开处方方面的关键作用。我们的创新研究设计能够更好地理解初级保健环境中的处方过程,并对未来的研究包括患者,护理人员和社区提供者具有启示意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Doctor–Patient Deprescribing Conversations: A Multidisciplinary Analysis of Quality Assurance Recordings

Doctor–Patient Deprescribing Conversations: A Multidisciplinary Analysis of Quality Assurance Recordings

Previous work in deprescribing interactions primarily involved surveys, interviews or reviews; there is a gap in utilizing real-time doctor–patient communication to understand what strategies physicians use to deprescribe and how patients respond. To move research methodology in this direction, our multidisciplinary team brought together professionals from biomedical, cognitive and social sciences to collaborate with a primary care practice and analyse nine quality-assurance recordings of doctor–patient visits. Eligible patients were 60 years or older and prescribed two or more medications. Through collaborative mixed-method analysis, we identified outcomes and themes of deprescribing conversations. An additional layer of analysis was conducted based on qualitative interviews with two deprescribing physicians for a conversation about physicians' decision-making process in initiating and responding to patient concerns in the interaction. Interplay between patient, physician and system factors was noted, highlighting the key role of health care team collaboration to support deprescribing. Our innovative research design enables a better understanding of deprescribing processes in a primary care setting and has implications for future research including patients, caregivers and community providers.

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
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
6.50%
发文量
126
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Basic & Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology is an independent journal, publishing original scientific research in all fields of toxicology, basic and clinical pharmacology. This includes experimental animal pharmacology and toxicology and molecular (-genetic), biochemical and cellular pharmacology and toxicology. It also includes all aspects of clinical pharmacology: pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, therapeutic drug monitoring, drug/drug interactions, pharmacogenetics/-genomics, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacovigilance, pharmacoeconomics, randomized controlled clinical trials and rational pharmacotherapy. For all compounds used in the studies, the chemical constitution and composition should be known, also for natural compounds.
×
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